Search results

Great, now I hope we can all focus on the topic of the thread--Doug's insane claims that the Church is not the bride of Christ.

Congratulations on being the only living infallible human being! LOL! Anyway! Moving on!

Protestants tend to be REALLY "touchy" about the passage, but their issue has nothing to do with any ambiguity in the text (clearly, "upon this rock" refers to Peter), but is nothing more or less than a simple unwarranted allergic reaction to Catholicism; that said, again, as I said to the other...

Accept that people disagree with your view, and move on. I will not be responding to any more of your off-topic messages on this thread.

@Doug Some of the fatal flaws in your view : 1. You say that believing Israel was unsecure in their salvation, but we are secure, because John 15 says they could be cut off, yet, in "Paul's Gospel to the Gentiles", which you say differs from "Peter's Gospel to Israel", he also warns that those...

It is not the topic of this thread, so it shouldn't occupy more of the discussion. I will now repost what I see as some of the fatal flaws in @Doug's view, and ask you to move on.

Nope, as stated, not Catholic. As explained, I see the statement "upon this rock" as sandwiched between two addresses of Peter, thus I read it as referring to Peter, who had just been renamed "Rock". I also see Peter as the foremost Apostle, as explained.

No, the context is Jesus RENAMES Peter as "Rock", then says "upon this rock", then says He gives the keys to "you" (singular), so the subject never shifts from Peter. Sorry, that's just how I read it.

He most certainly is. As noted, the subject never changes--Jesus names Peter "Cephas", the rock, then says he will build His Church on that rock, then says He gives the keys to "you" (singular), Peter. No, but I recognize Peter was the foremost Apostle, and, indeed, his name is on the...

@Doug Some of the fatal flaws in your view : 1. You say that believing Israel was unsecure in their salvation, but we are secure, because John 15 says they could be cut off, yet, in "Paul's Gospel to the Gentiles", which you say differs from "Peter's Gospel to Israel", he also warns that those...

Peter is clearly, for what ever reason, the foremost apostle. Peter was among the three Jesus brought with Him on the mount of transfiguration, was among the three He brought to pray with Him, was the one who confessed Jesus had the words of eternal life, was the one who preached at Pentecost...

So... you don't see a flaw in your logic? Christ says that Peter is the rock He builds His Church upon, meaning that Peter is both part of "believing Israel" and part of "the Church", making him, according to you, both part of "the bride" and not part of "the bride". OOPSIE! LOL!

I not only discard your assertions, I bring reasons why they are absurd so as to prevent others from being confused like you are.

It doesn't matter how the Catholic Church interprets it to bolster their Church--what Christ says is clear, that He builds His Church upon Peter the rock. I don't need to play word games to try to get out of Catholicism's claims, I just read and believe what Christ says.

And you say that Israel is the bride, but the Church is not, right?

Wouldn't you agree, though, that God is preserving a remnant of the nation of Israel / circumcision by grace, according to Romans 11? So, what's the issue--why think Peter and Paul preach different Gospels when you agree Paul's Gospel of Grace is the means whereby God is preserving the remnant...

LOL Peter wasn't preaching "God is going to flood the earth, so you will have to build an Ark and God will save you through the Ark" (though that foreshadowed what God would do in the future--the message we believe about His Son), nor "God will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in...

The OP seems to assert that "Israel" is the bride? Am I understanding your view correctly?

The Scripture for my assertion is the Scripture we are discussing--it's just that you are, in order to hold your crumbling view together, refusing to see it for what it is saying ("lest I had run in vain" he went to consult with the Apostles to make sure his message was on point--and he says...

@Doug In fact, you already said Peter WAS part of the Church :