Jesuslovesu
Member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2004
- Messages
- 1,125
Oh and Kara show me scripture that Mary was sinless not doctrine but scripture... thanks!
By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
SignUp Now!Kara said:Thanks Chad. Catholics would argue that she was also born sinless, but I've already got your opinions on that. Thanks again.
Exalt Jesus Christ as the only way to the Father. However you communicate with God is your business .
Excuse me, but what translation are you using? Are you using a Catholic bible? Because the correct translation of Genesis 3:15 is:
"And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel."
The earthly bearer of GOD'S Son.
About the wedding feast. Completely overlooked by the Romanists commenting here is the fact JESUS REBUKED MARY FOR BRINGING THE PEOPLE TO HIM FOR WINE. He said (original NIV cause it was handy...not an endorsement)
"Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied. "My time has not yet come." John 2:4.
She wasn't a perpetual virgin because she had other children with Joseph after Jesus. Two of Jesus 'half brothers' wrote books of the New Testament. James and Judas (Jude). Two more half brothers were Joseph (2nd ) and Simon. He also had half sisters.
Mark 6:3-4 "Isn't this carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him. Jesus said to them " Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor."
Hmmmmm. Lab, care to speculate on any of the above or to try and refute history? I'd be interested to hear.Sadly many protestant denominations have followed the midieval Roman church into many errors
I don't call my mother my FATHER'S mother. Do you? God is the FATHER so how can Mary be His mother? She can't. End of that false logic. Besides I didn't drag your family into the discussion, so leave mine out of it kindly.
I thought we were leaving families 'out of it'?then I would suggest you must not have a very good relationship with your brother or father.
The bedrock, foundational truth Jesus built the church upon was what Peter had SAID which Jesus said he COULDN'T have said unless the Father revealed it to him. That was that JESUS WAS THE CHRIST THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. Jesus is the cornerstone, foundation, groom and so much more of the church. NOT PETER.
Explain to me why more than half of the New Testament is written by Paul, by far the apostle to the Gentiles if the church was built on Peter?
The word is "for", by the way, which makes a huge difference.Paul, who wrote many more books, said that people who said they were of Paul, Peter (or Cephas as his name was in Greek), Apollos, etc. were WRONG WRONG WRONG.
I never once made use of the words "Roman Catholic".The ROMAN Catholic church came later
And tell me, which religion grew out of that? I can promise you that 2 thousand years ago the Anglican Church etc. did not exist.So the universal church did start with Christ, then the apostles.
And, by the way, historically speaking, Jesus asked John, the apostle, to look after Mary after He died.
SHE was the one that needed looking after.
Kara said:Please. Jesus is also God. Don't go round in circles.
Jesus, when He took on the form of man, called Himself the Son of MAN. He also claimed God as His Father, so He was God's Son. Unless you are going to sit there and tell me that God the Father eternally lived in human form, then yes, there is a distinction between God's seed (Jesus) and God Himself.
Otherwise you have Jesus praying to Himself, Speaking to Himself out of the sky saying this is my SON in whom I am well pleased, etc. I know it's hard for us as mortals to understand that God can do something like split His personage, but He can.
And no where did God the Father become Mary's son. And no where does Mary, Jesus or anyone call Mary the Mother of God except the Roman Catholic religion.
Kara said:I suppose Jesus's use of the word "you" is also lost in translation?
The word "you" is NOT in the translation unless you are still holding that the entire dialogue is referring to Peter. (In which case, later on, when Jesus rebukes Peter then that entire dialogue must also be directed to Peter, meaning Peter for some time became Satan.....you have a very rough case if you're 'pillar of the church is Satan'.)
Here is the quote from Matthew 16:13-20 "When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, 'Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone he was the Christ."
..... NOTE first of all that at this point though Matthew refers to him as 'Simon Peter', Jesus calls him Simon son of Jonah, so Peter was a new name Jesus gave him, just as He gave Levi the name Matthew, etc. Peter's spiritual eyes had been opened by God and Peter's confession was a statement of faith.
It was not unusual at all for Jesus to give someone who demonstrated that he had the new life that His father offered a new name to go with that identity.
Again, in Greek the word is completely different and even is translated differently in English. Peter in English doesn't mean rock. Neither does stone or pebble in Greek (where the name Peter comes from) mean bedrock or foundation stone.
If you are referring to the later you about keys to the kingdom and whatever will be bound and loosed, the context is clear that keys are spiritual truths, like the one GOD revealed to Simon (that Jesus is the Christ), who then was called Peter, and they set God's people free. The spiritual truths from God's Word, not Peter.
After all, it was Jesus after His resurrection that preached victory over hell and holds the key to eternal life, not Peter and He wasn't giving it over to Peter as you will see.
RIGHT AFTER THIS DIALOGUE THAT YOU ARE FOND OF QUOTING WE READ IN MATTHEW 16:21-23 "From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day. Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!" But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men."
If anything should make it more clear to you that Peter was NOT infallible (nor are the popes, though they DO claim it), it is this. One minute He says Jesus is the Christ, the next he is used of SATAN to rebuke Jesus for going to the cross, the very thing Jesus came to earth to do.
Later of course Peter denies Jesus three times. Jesus restores him to faith and tells him to then 'strengthen your brothers'. Not your underlings, not your bishops or priests, brothers.
Peter was an equal to the other apostles.
In fact, Paul had a legitimate argument that if comparisons were to be made he would have been considered the greatest apostle, but realized, unlike the apostles/disciples who were always arguing who was the greatest, the greatest was he who was willing to be the least, and so Paul was content to call himself the least of the apostles.
Also, it was Paul, not Peter who wrote the epistle to the Romans that is in the Bible. It was Paul who was imprisoned in Rome and witnessed to many and many of the early Christians in Rome were as a result of Paul's ministry.
So this mistaken notion of Peter being supreme was not scriptural, but a doctrine of man that came later.
I know you did not mention Roman Catholicism. I did. Because there is a big difference. The early church categorized the church catholic (that is universal and alive) and the church triumphant (that is the believers in heaven). This was not to denote a denomination at all.
No one was talking about the Anglican church, I'm not sure why you brought it up, but to be accurate, as I stated in a previous post, the church began in Jerusalem, with the apostles and others in an upper room receiving the Holy Spirit.
James, the apostle, was the leader of the church in Jerusalem. By rights of human acknowledgement, James, not Peter was the first leader in the church. There was no church in Rome at that time. It didn't exist.
So if you're trying to play the history card, you fell short because Rome was not the first church, Peter was not the first missionary to Rome and Jesus never made Peter the supreme leader of His church. In fact, it was Paul that Jesus called the apostle to the Gentiles, which the people of Rome (who are not Jews) are.
The people who truly believe in Rome can thank Jesus that He sent Paul with the gospel and that the church came there, after many other cities, I might add.
Furthermore, no where does Jesus say that Rome is the center of His church and the only link between Rome and the baby church was the Rome was an enemy occupier of Israel and that Nero, Caesar of Rome, put many many believers to death in His arenas and other ways (by lion, by blaming them for a fire he started, etc.).
So actually Rome was against the early church, persecuted the early church and had it not been for Jesus' grace, would have born along with the Jews that put Jesus up for execution, the brunt of the blame for crucifying Jesus.
Can I make it any plainer for you? I'm sorry you think it's circular reasoning, which by the way is the way that sermons are done in Europe....one main point and then points around that point forming a circle.
You've been duped by listening to the doctrines of men rather than studying the Word of God, the Bible.
I don't hold you to blame for the deception. But I would appreciate it if you'd stop trying to spread it on this board.
And by the way, bringing up a plurality of 'fathers of America' was rather odd, but actually supports the fact the apostles were equal, not one above the other. Just because one wrote more, one did the speaking, one led the early church in Jerusalem, on lived longest and wrote about the end, each had a function Jesus gave them and on the foundation THAT JESUS WAS THE CHRIST, EACH apostle built on. Peter is not the supreme apostle. But Hebrews clearly teaches Jesus was the Supreme being over angels, apostles, prophets, kings and all mankind.
Lab
Kara said:Chad, I've read something in the Bible that has Mary saying "All ages shall call me blessed." Would you mind explaining that to me? Thanks!