1) I believe it does say that Mary was a virgin and in at least one of the Gospels, it says that Joseph "knew her not" until she had born a son, Jesus.
2) This is from 1 Corinthians though some translations differ exactly on how this is worded. I had to read this at a wedding recently (an atheist reading the Bible out loud at a wedding... oh well :) )
3) The Jesus birth story says wise men came to visit him but never specifies how many. We tend to think that three came because the Bible mentions three gifts but it never says that just three came. We just know it was plural ("men") so it could be two or 2000.
4) This is a quote from Karl Marx I believe, on Communism.
5) The Bible does say "The Father and I are one" but that in and of itself doesn't teach the Trinity. As I recall, the Trinity was a later teaching, added by a priest (Catholic?) in like 200 AD. Or something like that, I told you I was rusty :)
6) Jesus said this and it's in the Bible but I can't remember the specifics.
7) Didn't Paul - not Peter - found the church in Rome?
8 and 9) Jesus appeared to his disciples but I don't remember where exactly. Additionally, the first Gospel written (Mark around 70ish AD) did NOT have Jesus appearing to his disciples but ended after the women found an empty tome (though the rest of Mark was added on shortly thereafter)
10) I remember hearing about this in LDS seminary but I don't remember if it was in the Bible or not.
Number 6 is a matter of dispute between Protestants (excluding Episcopalians) and Catholics. Mormonism appears to take the Catholic position that the "rock" was Peter. However, protestants believe the rock was the faith exhibited by Peter. As for apostalic succession, LDS belief is that it failed in the "Great Apostasy" and other sects maintain it continued and did not have to go through Peter. JS had to resurrect Peter to create his new religion. Just to make it more palatable, he added John and James. It is and was hogwash. Again, Christ did not (by best authority) confer the succession on Peter. If this were the case, how was Paul able to disagree with him? Paul, as an apostle, also negates any suggestion that the laying on of hands ended with the death of the first twelve.
The use of a re-appearance of Peter was a hoax intended to gather those who had already concluded that a re-institution of the original church was necessary and make it palatable for those who came from a Catholic background as well.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2012 03:47PM by rhgc.
Point well taken. I was referring to the interpretation of the rock and Peter, rather than discussing Christ who is referred to also as "the rock of our salvation". Rock, in the context of the statement by Peter that Jesus is the Christ, and Christ discusses "rock" does not change the recognition of Christ being the chief cornerstone (also rock), etc.