Upon THIS Rock I will build my Church

[BreadOfLife]

Sound exegesis, friend. The "Rock" upon which the church is built is NOT Peter, but Peter's CONFESSION - "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

"Peter" = "Petros" meaning "pebble"
"ROCK" = "Petra" meaning "huge stone of immense proportion"

Peter couldn't have been the first "pope". He had a wife. He was prone to impulsiveness and folly. He was anything but "infallible" such as deluded papists characterize their papal pedophile-in-Chief. Thank God He has build His church upon Jesus - for upon no other foundation can it ever hope to stand.

And HOW many times must you be schooled on this point?
HOW many times must you be shown that Jesus didn't speak Greek to the Apostles, Einstein?? They spoke ARAMAIC.

Jesus NEVER called Simon a "Petros". He called him a "Kepha", which is Aramaic for ROCK - and nothing else.
"You are KEPHA and on this KEPHA I will build my church."

Also - WHO told you that Papal infallibility meant sinlessness or perfection?? You are foolishly conflating infallibility with impeccability. Popes make mistakes like everybody else. In their infallibility, they are prevented by the Holy Spirit from teaching error in dogmatic matter of faith and morals.

If you're going to make a practice of being an anti-Catholic - and least TRY to educate yourself.
This is getting embarrassing . . .

 

[Philip James]

Sound exegesis, friend. The "Rock" upon which the church is built is NOT Peter, but Peter's CONFESSION - "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

"Peter" = "Petros" meaning "pebble"
"ROCK" = "Petra" meaning "huge stone of immense proportion"

Peter couldn't have been the first "pope". He had a wife. He was prone to impulsiveness and folly. He was anything but "infallible" such as deluded papists characterize their papal pedophile-in-Chief. Thank God He has build His church upon Jesus - for upon no other foundation can it ever hope to stand.

Weak

 

[ScottA]

And your hate reveals . . . HATE.
Thank you for that non-answer . . .

You accuse me of hate. Produce it. You're not kidding anyone.

As for your own hate, you have produced it already.

As for a non-answer, you misunderstand. I am not answering you, but warning you and giving you the opportunity to have a reasonable conversation, that you might reconsider the error of your way. This is the love of Christ. Your choice.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You accuse me of hate. Produce it. You're not kidding anyone.

As for your own hate, you have produced it already.

As for a non-answer, you misunderstand. I am not answering you, but warning you and giving you the opportunity to have a reasonable conversation, that you might reconsider the error of your way. This is the love of Christ. Your choice.

I could say the very SAME thing about you - only YOU are the one who first brought "hate" into the conversation.
I don't "hate" anybody - nor have I expressed hatred towards anybody. I am merely defending Christ's Church against the LIES that Phoneman and others are vomiting out on this thread - and I have nailed them on many of those lies.

Why don't you issue a "warning" to your fellow anti-Catholic Protestants? Why come after ME?
The reason is that you are disingenuous and hypocritical. It's "okay" to show the ugliest of hatred for the Catholic Church - but God help those darn Catholics if they make US look bad!

What incredible hypocrisy . . .

 

[ScottA]

I could say the very SAME thing about you - only YOU are the one who first brought "hate" into the conversation.
I don't "hate" anybody - nor have I expressed hatred towards anybody. I am merely defending Christ's Church against the LIES that Phoneman and others are vomiting out on this thread - and I have nailed them on many of those lies.

Why don't you issue a "warning" to your fellow anti-Catholic Protestants? Why come after ME?
The reason is that you are disingenuous and hypocritical. It's "okay" to show the ugliest of hatred for the Catholic Church - but God help those darn Catholics if they make US look bad!

What incredible hypocrisy . . .

Wrong again. I have warned without prejudice, even naming Protestants and Catholics together when appropriate. But you, I am not after you. It is just that you make the biggest error and rant here, and to this I have given an answer. This I do to extending my hand even where it is not welcome, not for your sake only, but for all.

Because this is true, I am not disingenuous or hypocritical as you accuse me of being, and therefore the ugliness and hatred is on you.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Wrong again. I have warned without prejudice, even naming Protestants and Catholics together when appropriate. But you, I am not after you. It is just that you make the biggest error and rant here, and to this I have given an answer. This I do to extending my hand even where it is not welcome, not for your sake only, but for all.

Because this is true, I am not disingenuous or hypocritical as you accuse me of being, and therefore the ugliness and hatred is on you.

Nice talking points - but I don't see you condemning anti-Catholics with the same fervor as you condemn me and other Catholics on this board for FAR LESS.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds . . .

 

[ScottA]

Nice talking points - but I don't see you condemning anti-Catholics with the same fervor as you condemn me and other Catholics on this board for FAR LESS.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds . . .

I have "condemned" no one. This is only personal to you, because you take it personal. If I have stood in the way of you carrying out your crusade, it's not personal...it's just that you are the one doing the crusading, and thus you make the whole anti-Catholic issue a topic because you carry that banner - not because I am against Catholics, because I am not and I have told you this many times. But then again, this is your pet peeve and the banner you carry.

Whether you or your actions are under the Catholic banner or not, I would still speak against any who came to the same biblical fork in the road and went the way you have gone. But it is not an attack, it is (as I said) a warning of pending disaster. If you would like me to stop, then stop taking it personal...and consider all my future warnings to be for others besides yourself...or put the banner down, and then I won't include you either, but will only take issue where the banner is taken up.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I have "condemned" no one. This is only personal to you, because you take it personal. If I have stood in the way of you carrying out your crusade, it's not personal...it's just that you are the one doing the crusading, and thus you make the whole anti-Catholic issue a topic because you carry that banner - not because I am against Catholics, because I am not and I have told you this many times. But then again, this is your pet peeve and the banner you carry.

Whether you or your actions are under the Catholic banner or not, I would still speak against any who came to the same biblical fork in the road and went the way you have gone. But it is not an attack, it is (as I said) a warning of pending disaster. If you would like me to stop, then stop taking it personal...and consider all my future warnings to be for others besides yourself...or put the banner down, and then I won't include you either, but will only take issue where the banner is taken up.

This is utter nonsense for the mere fact that Idon’t come here to wage war. As a matter of fact – I have NEVERstarted a single thread on this forum.

My ONLY purpose here is to seek out those who are telling LIES about the Catholic Church, expose them and their lies – and set the record straight. The anti-Catholic “war”here was waged LONG before I ever got here.

Frankly - I don’t care if you stop with all of your lies and condemnations. It only give me more reason to be here telling the truth to those who might beseduced by your lies. In short - the more I can expose people like you – the more the message of truth comes out when you are exposed . . .

 

[brakelite]

This is utter nonsense for the mere fact that Idon’t come here to wage war. As a matter of fact – I have NEVERstarted a single thread on this forum.

My ONLY purpose here is to seek out those who are telling LIES about the Catholic Church, expose them and their lies – and set the record straight. The anti-Catholic “war”here was waged LONG before I ever got here.

As the forum's resident inquisitor it must be absolutely galling for you that you don't have the power of the state and her armies to physically chase down and burn those you disagree with.

 

[BreadOfLife]

As the forum's resident inquisitor it must be absolutely galling for you that you don't have the power of the state and her armies to physically chase down and burn those you disagree with.

The Church didn't burn anybody at the stake. Those were matters of STATE - and they weren't "forced" to do so by the Church.
Killing heretics was a way for kingdoms to keep the people in line. Heresy was bad for commerce and keeping the peace.

As for the wacky people on this forum who insist on regurgitating lies - I really couldn't care less because I know the truth.
I only expose them for those who aren't familiar with the truth - so they won't be seduced by the lies . . .

 

[brakelite]

The Church didn't burn anybody at the stake. Those were matters of STATE - and they weren't "forced" to do so by the Church.
Killing heretics was a way for kingdoms to keep the people in line. Heresy was bad for commerce and keeping the peace.

As for the wacky people on this forum who insist on regurgitating lies - I really couldn't care less because I know the truth.
I only expose them for those who aren't familiar with the truth - so they won't be seduced by the lies . . .

Like I said, it must frustrate you that you no longer have the state to do your duty work. As to your contention that the church didn't force the state to obey the church, the entire dark ages revolved around priests coercing Kings and Queens to submit to papal authority. Heresy isn't a civil offence.

 

[epostle]

I Always do the homework.One
Please pay attention. Or, quit trying to hide. The information I gave showed that the commentators said Eve was acknowledging the Lords promise that from her would come the promised seed to destroy the serpent. (Gen. 3:15) This is what Adam was alluding to when he called Eve the 'mother of all living'. You do recognize that the term 'mother of all living' comes from Adam, not God. Both Adam and Eve were speaking in reference to (Gen. 3:15).

'mother of all living' is still scripture, regardless of who said it. It's as silly as saying, "the Pauline epistles come from Paul, not God." Adam was sinless at this time; what he says should mean something. One can skip over many bridges to Revelation 12:17. where you find a woman and a serpent in the same verse as Gen. 3:15, the only 2 verses in the Bible that contain this. Unless you argue that "those who keep the commandments and testify to Jesus Christ" are not living, and not offspring of the woman.

You are really twisting the Scriptures now. Concerning Abraham (Heb. 11:17-19) doesn't say anything about Abraham praising God. It says, "...he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead;..." Again, pay attention, or quit hiding. Abraham believed the promises which is why he was willing to offer up Isaac. the promises involved Abraham as the father of many nations. So you see, Abraham recognized and acted on the promises God had gave him.

Abraham is called "Father" which is where the term "Pope" comes from, that seems to disturb you.

Concerning Jacob's name changed to Israel. Big deal. His name was changed to Israel. We have a whole nation today called Israel as a result. We have no one called the nation of Peter. Do we. Is anyone called Peterites? Anyone?

Now you are just being stupid. We have no one called the nation of Paul.

I gave you a verse where Eliakim was acting in the authority of his position. (Is. 37:2) Thus he acknowledged the authority that was given. A blind man can see that.

And no earthly human authority was further developed into the New Testament?

Peter never did act on the authority that Rome declares him to have and to be the successors of . Face it, the pope and the papacy are usurpers over the Christians of the Roman church. The Roman church is full of Christians, but they have over them a ruling class straight out of hell.

Stranger

Your comic book image of the papacy doesn't exist.

​

 

[ScottA]

This is utter nonsense for the mere fact that Idon’t come here to wage war. As a matter of fact – I have NEVERstarted a single thread on this forum.

My ONLY purpose here is to seek out those who are telling LIES about the Catholic Church, expose them and their lies – and set the record straight. The anti-Catholic “war”here was waged LONG before I ever got here.

Frankly - I don’t care if you stop with all of your lies and condemnations. It only give me more reason to be here telling the truth to those who might beseduced by your lies. In short - the more I can expose people like you – the more the message of truth comes out when you are exposed . . .

You expose yourself.

Thank you!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Like I said, it must frustrate you that you no longer have the state to do your duty work. As to your contention that the church didn't force the state to obey the church, the entire dark ages revolved around priests coercing Kings and Queens to submit to papal authority. Heresy isn't a civil offence.

Ummmmm, anything could be treated as acriminal offense in a kingdom during the “Dark” Ages. The subjects existed at the pleasure of the King and NOT the other way around.

The plain fact is that heresy was bad for the general peace. They were considered rabble-rousers and enemies of the state. You need to do your history homework . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

You expose yourself.

Thank you!

Just behave yourself and there won't be any need for me to expose you . . .

 

[ScottA]

Just behave yourself and there won't be any need for me to expose you . . .

Hahaha...

But to "behave" myself as you would have me behave, would be according to the flesh, and if you expose me when I have behaved otherwise...is Christ.

Thank you again very much!

 

[Enoch111]

Killing heretics was a way for kingdoms to keep the people in line. Heresy was bad for commerce and keeping the peace.

But who labeled them as "heretics"? And who dominated the "Holy Roman Empire"?
"The mostly German prince-electors, the highest-ranking noblemen of the empire, usually elected one of their peers as "King of the Romans", and he would later be crowned emperor by the Pope; the tradition of papal coronations was discontinued in the 16th century."

 

[BreadOfLife]

But who labeled them as "heretics"? And who dominated the "Holy Roman Empire"?
"The mostly German prince-electors, the highest-ranking noblemen of the empire, usually elected one of their peers as "King of the Romans", and he would later be crowned emperor by the Pope; the tradition of papal coronations was discontinued in the 16th century."

Most of the so-called “Great Heresies” such as Gnnosticism, Arianism, Sabbellianism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, et alwere identified by the Church. There are many other heretical beliefs proliferated by individuals who were dealt with, as I said, by the state in various kingdoms. Many of these were simply variations of the earlier heresies.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hahaha...

But to "behave" myself as you would have me behave, would be according to the flesh, and if you expose me when I have behaved otherwise...is Christ.

Thank you again very much!

“Behave” means to stick to the facts and to stay away from lies, myths and fairy tales.

NONE of those are Christ . . .

 

[ScottA]

“Behave” means to stick to the facts and to stay away from lies, myths and fairy tales.

NONE of those are Christ . . .

May I quote you on that? Oh, look, I've done it!