Search results

Okay class...BreadOfLife is out of context. I already have (and so did Jesus), but can anyone tell us what the ONLY two rock metaphors are represented [in context] in Jesus' comments to Peter in Matthew 16:17-19? 17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh...

"One more time...?" that's insanity. But, here, here is what you all missed: "God my Rock." Psalm 42:9 ...very simple, but then you all looked instead to "flesh and blood." And what is worse, is you all actually know you are wrong--or you would not have scoured all the records to find "65...

Still you leave out "My Father", "My Rock." Isaiah didn't, Jesus didn't, nor did Peter-- but you all did. You can't even go there--you just leave Him out. I hate to say it, but Satan made a better argument in the garden. :(

All who receive the Holy Spirit are "blessed." Peter was the first stone placed by Christ-- a rock, "not" the Rock, not "My Rock." This is the message that Christ brought about through Peter, clarifying just which Rock His church would be built upon. I understood it completely, as did Peter...

The teachings of men. You should have heard in Spirit, but unlike Peter, you did not.

Again...you leave out "My Father" ("My Rock"), choosing the lesser. And by this same measure you shall also receive. :(

Just what I said-- You all missed it completely! 17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the...

No, that's wrong. Jesus gave two possible ways to take what He was saying: He contrasted Peter/flesh and blood with the Father...and the church fathers chose "flesh and blood." The rest is history.

I use biblical precedence the custom of those sent who's practices are written in the scriptures. Not attacks, but scripture. You, on the other hand, use cartoons, name calling, and expressions of hatred. "ECF" ...In cell biology, extracellular fluid (ECF) denotes all body fluid outside the...

These things I am well aware of, but you are missing the point-- The point Jesus was making, is that the scribes and Pharisees had it wrong, so far off He gave them a ration (Woe). Which sets a precedence for not doing as they did...which He defined in His criticisms as lording over the people...

That would mean Light having communion with darkness, of which--truly, there should be none: 2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? I would say that more times...

You are apparently too close to see clearly, and blinded by all the gaudy priestly finery. Indeed Peter's roll was not that of King, nor was he the gaudy one. It was the church fathers who made him a Priest and a Father, and who gave him (and them) a legacy of errors--which was completely...

The historic precedence for the error of this is when Israel felt they would like rather to have a man as king over them than God. That is the error: Not wanting God 100% over us. What God showed Israel, is you are either all-in, or you're out-- not regarding salvation, but regarding His favor...

That is not at all true. Both King Saul and Peter's rolls among men came as a result of men looking to men, rather than wanting God to be their king or priest. These are among the greatest departures from God in all of biblical history--only the titles were changed. Woe, and Woe.

That would only be true if you leave out verse 17-- just as you have: 17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will...

Ugh! I see you are still following the wrong rock. And you should know better...you know what happened when Israel wanted a man as king. I guess the warning never occurred to you??

The scriptures explain: what they "meant for evil, God has meant it for good." As I said already, this is not unlike the partial blindness put upon Israel, and for the same reason-- "until the fullness of the gentiles has come in."

Except there is only limited authority given for carrying the water, as we know from Israel's example. Such traditions are only for a time, and do not at all mean they are/were completely correct. There were also those following the traditions of the Priests and Pharisees for hundreds of years...

Except, it is not really in their hands.

It seems to me that you do not prescribe to the Trinity doctrine. Is that correct? Yes, we too, if we are God's, are One with Him. It is the scriptures that refer to Jesus as the Son, but also as One with the Father, and as God. But there are two things at work in the scriptures: 1) There is...