Upon THIS Rock I will build my Church

[BreadOfLife]

I Always do the homework.

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).

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. And the promises involved Abraham as the father of many nations. So you see, Abraham recognized and acted on the promises God had gave him.

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?

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.

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

And the commentators weren’t wrong about Eve acknowledging God’s promises - YOU are.

Eve never said a WORD after the prophecy in Gen. 3:15.

This has NOTHING to do with her Title as “Mother of ALL the living” - and her title had NOTHING to do with Gen. 3:15. The prophecy says NOTHING about her being “Mother of ALL the living”.

Adam called her Eve FIVE verse later - and Eve NEVER called herself the “Mother of ALL the living”. She never even“acknowledged” it.


As for Abraham – his willingness to sacrifice Isaac had NOTHING to do with his being “Father of a multitude of nations.” This was an act of FAITH – not bargaining.

As for Eliakim – his ACTING on his Authority is not an “acknowledgement. Anyway, Peter acted on HIS authority (Acts 15). After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed the assembly to make his ruling. James later reiterated and agreedwith him.

As for your last comment in RED – just more of your angry stupidity . . .

 

[ScottA]

Only because YOU consider Scripture to be “upside down” . . .
(Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23)

It is the world that is upside down, and by the world you have made the scriptures something they were not intended to be. Your interpretation means nothing, certainly lacks any authority, because you have made whatever scriptures suit you, to contradict:

1 Timothy 2:5
"For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus"

Go ahead...show anywhere in the gospel of Christ, where He appoints anything but servants, or gives anything but gifts of the Holy Spirit, that establishes any office between God and men other than Christ. Let your contradictions be fully known. Go for it.

 

[Stranger]

And the commentators weren’t wrong about Eve acknowledging God’s promises - YOU are.

Eve never said a WORD after the prophecy in Gen. 3:15.

This has NOTHING to do with her Title as “Mother of ALL the living” - and her title had NOTHING to do with Gen. 3:15. The prophecy says NOTHING about her being “Mother of ALL the living”.

Adam called her Eve FIVE verse later - and Eve NEVER called herself the “Mother of ALL the living”. She never even“acknowledged” it.


As for Abraham – his willingness to sacrifice Isaac had NOTHING to do with his being “Father of a multitude of nations.” This was an act of FAITH – not bargaining.

As for Eliakim – his ACTING on his Authority is not an “acknowledgement. Anyway, Peter acted on HIS authority (Acts 15). After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed the assembly to make his ruling. James later reiterated and agreedwith him.

As for your last comment in RED – just more of your angry stupidity . . .

The commentators say differently. As I showed.

Scripture says differently. It was Eve that spoke in (Gen. 4:1)

Pay attention. God never gave Eve the titile 'mother of all living'. Do you see that? You want to keep trying to prove Peter is some kind of 'pope' due to Gods saying he is. And you want to use Eve as an example due to Peters not knowing he was any kind of pope, and so trying to show that Eve didn't know she was the mother of all living. Problem is, God didn't designate that to Eve. Adam did. So you argument is dead in the water.

The fact is that both Adam and Eve in their response were responding to (Gen. 3:15). Which means Eve recognized the child that was born to her was a fulfillment of those promises. And Adam did the same. Eve was mistaken in the one that was born. But she was not mistaken in believing the promise. Nor was Adam in calling her the 'mother of all living'.

Who said anything about bargaining? I have always said it was Abraham's faith, belief in the promises. Why do you interject this lie, wordsmith?

If Eliakim, in acting on the authority given him, is not an acknowledgment of his authority, what is?

No, Peter never claimed or acted on the authority that the Roman Church gives the pope. Never. Which you have already admitted, by the way.

Angry...yes. Stupidity...no. The pope and the papcy hold the Roman church as prisoners. Disgraceful.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

The commentators say differently. As I showed.

Scripture says differently. It was Eve that spoke in (Gen. 4:1)

Pay attention. God never gave Eve the titile 'mother of all living'. Do you see that? You want to keep trying to prove Peter is some kind of 'pope' due to Gods saying he is. And you want to use Eve as an example due to Peters not knowing he was any kind of pope, and so trying to show that Eve didn't know she was the mother of all living. Problem is, God didn't designate that to Eve. Adam did. So you argument is dead in the water.

The fact is that both Adam and Eve in their response were responding to (Gen. 3:15). Which means Eve recognized the child that was born to her was a fulfillment of those promises. And Adam did the same. Eve was mistaken in the one that was born. But she was not mistaken in believing the promise. Nor was Adam in calling her the 'mother of all living'.

Who said anything about bargaining? I have always said it was Abraham's faith, belief in the promises. Why do you interject this lie, wordsmith?

If Eliakim, in acting on the authority given him, is not an acknowledgment of his authority, what is?

No, Peter never claimed or acted on the authority that the Roman Church gives the pope. Never. Which you have already admitted, by the way.

Angry...yes. Stupidity...no. The pope and the papcy hold the Roman church as prisoners. Disgraceful.

Stranger

The argument isn’t “dead” because Adam called her “Mother of ALL the living”. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds as YOU were the one who tied Adam’s titling of her to Gen. 3:15. NOW, you say that the point is “dead in the water”.
Make up your mind or simply admit your pathetic hypocrisy . . .

Eve’s statement in Gen 4:1 has NOTHING to do with the prophecy of Gen 3:15. – and it certainly has nothing to do with her title of “Mother of ALL the living”.

And, ONE more time – Abraham never “acknowledged” his title of “Father of a multitude of nations.” The author of Hebrewsis giving a SECOND HAND account of Abraham – NOT a quote. I suggest you learn the difference.

Finally – yes, Peter DIDact ono his Authorityat the Council of Jerusalem, Just as Eliakim did, as Ieducated you in my last post. Hiding your head in the sand won’t make the truth simply “go away”, Einstein . . .

 

[Stranger]

The argument isn’t “dead” because Adam called her “Mother of ALL the living”. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds as YOU were the one who tied Adam’s titling of her to Gen. 3:15. NOW, you say that the point is “dead in the water”.
Make up your mind or simply admit your pathetic hypocrisy . . .

Eve’s statement in Gen 4:1 has NOTHING to do with the prophecy of Gen 3:15. – and it certainly has nothing to do with her title of “Mother of ALL the living”.

And, ONE more time – Abraham never “acknowledged” his title of “Father of a multitude of nations.” The author of Hebrewsis giving a SECOND HAND account of Abraham – NOT a quote. I suggest you learn the difference.

Finally – yes, Peter DIDact ono his Authorityat the Council of Jerusalem, Just as Eliakim did, as Ieducated you in my last post. Hiding your head in the sand won’t make the truth simply “go away”, Einstein . . .

What? No admission of being ignorant of what Eve said. You said Eve said nothing after the prophecy of (Gen. 3:15). And yet just one chapter over there she is, speaking. Now, why should anyone trust your understanding of the Bible, when you continue to make these stupid mistakes that a Protestant third grader wouldn't make? And then you refuse to acknowledge your ignorance and hope to sweep it under the rug?.

You better call the pope and his papacy and let them know your Bible study is severely lacking.

The point is dead in the water because Jesus spoke to Peter. God spoke to Abraham. Adam is the one who made the declaration that Eve was the mother of all living, due to (Gen. 3:15). And Eve acknowledged the promise of God in (Gen. 3:15) by her statement in (Gen. 4:1). It is a sealed deal, Einstein. Both acknowledged the promises of (Gen. 3:15) . In so doing Eve was acknowledging what Adam said about her being the mother of all living. And again, this is not God saying it. This is Adam saying it.

Really, the author of Hebrews is giving a second hand account? So you're saying it is not to be trusted? And just what is the account given of Peter in (Matt. 16)? Perhaps you can explain the difference.

You wish I would go away. But I won't. Peter participated in the council due to the revelation he had been given as explanation as to why Gentiles didn't need to be circumcised or keep the law. But it was James who was the leader of the Council. Not Peter. (Acts 15:4-21). Now, why would James be the leader if Peter had all primacy in the Church. Answer: because Peter did not have primacy and never acted like he had primacy. It is a ploy of the pope and papacy so as to have rule over the Church of Jesus Christ.

And concerning Eliakim, I have already showed you that he acted on the authority given him. That is proof that he recognized the said authority. Peter never did, as you already admit. Try again.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

What? No admission of being ignorant of what Eve said. You said Eve said nothing after the prophecy of (Gen. 3:15). And yet just one chapter over there she is, speaking. Now, why should anyone trust your understanding of the Bible, when you continue to make these stupid mistakes that a Protestant third grader wouldn't make? And then you refuse to acknowledge your ignorance and hope to sweep it under the rug?.

You better call the pope and his papacy and let them know your Bible study is severely lacking.

The point is dead in the water because Jesus spoke to Peter. God spoke to Abraham. Adam is the one who made the declaration that Eve was the mother of all living, due to (Gen. 3:15). And Eve acknowledged the promise of God in (Gen. 3:15) by her statement in (Gen. 4:1). It is a sealed deal, Einstein. Both acknowledged the promises of (Gen. 3:15) . In so doing Eve was acknowledging what Adam said about her being the mother of all living. And again, this is not God saying it. This is Adam saying it.

Really, the author of Hebrews is giving a second hand account? So you're saying it is not to be trusted? And just what is the account given of Peter in (Matt. 16)? Perhaps you can explain the difference.

You wish I would go away. But I won't. Peter participated in the council due to the revelation he had been given as explanation as to why Gentiles didn't need to be circumcised or keep the law. But it was James who was the leader of the Council. Not Peter. (Acts 15:4-21). Now, why would James be the leader if Peter had all primacy in the Church. Answer: because Peter did not have primacy and never acted like he had primacy. It is a ploy of the pope and papacy so as to have rule over the Church of Jesus Christ.

And concerning Eliakim, I have already showed you that he acted on the authority given him. That is proof that he recognized the said authority. Peter never did, as you already admit. Try again.
Stranger

Soooooo, Adam was WRONG when he gave Eve the title of “Mother of ALL the living”?? ALL Scripture – EVERY WORD of it is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16).

Your point about Eve is as stupid and devoid of Scriptural understanding as your idea that Peter had no Authority.

The plain fact of the matter is that . . .
- Eve had a title that she NEVER “acknowledged” in Scripture.
- Abraham had a title that he NEVER “acknowledged” in Scripture.
- Jacob had a title that he NEVER “acknowledged” in Scripture.
- Eliakim had a title and Authority that he NEVER “acknowledged” in Scripture.
- Peter had a title and Authority that he NEVER “acknowledged” in Scripture.

This does NOT “void”their titles – OR their Authority.

As for the Council of Jerusalem – you have a pretty moronic understanding of the events that took place.

After much discussion about the Judaizers, it is PETER and not James who gets up and gives his judgement. After Paul and Barnabas tell their stories – James reiterates Peter’s original judgment.

As for the Author of Hebrews – I never said that it is not to be trusted. I am making the point that Abraham is not “acknowledging” anything here. He is being spoken of by a third party.

Learn the difference, Einstein . . .

 

[Stranger]

Soooooo, Adam was WRONG when he gave Eve the title of “Mother of ALL the living”?? ALL Scripture – EVERY WORD of it is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16).

Your point about Eve is as stupid and devoid of Scriptural understanding as your idea that Peter had no Authority.

The plain fact of the matter is that . . .
- Eve had a title that she NEVER “acknowledged” in Scripture.
- Abraham had a title that he NEVER “acknowledged” in Scripture.
- Jacob had a title that he NEVER “acknowledged” in Scripture.
- Eliakim had a title and Authority that he NEVER “acknowledged” in Scripture.
- Peter had a title and Authority that he NEVER “acknowledged” in Scripture.

This does NOT “void”their titles – OR their Authority.

As for the Council of Jerusalem – you have a pretty moronic understanding of the events that took place.

After much discussion about the Judaizers, it is PETER and not James who gets up and gives his judgement. After Paul and Barnabas tell their stories – James reiterates Peter’s original judgment.

As for the Author of Hebrews – I never said that it is not to be trusted. I am making the point that Abraham is not “acknowledging” anything here. He is being spoken of by a third party.

Learn the difference, Einstein . . .

You offer nothing but a rant. No primacy for Peter. He never acknowledged any, and none is ever shown in Scripture. It is James who is the head of the Church at Jerusalem. Not Peter.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

It is the world that is upside down, and by the world you have made the scriptures something they were not intended to be. Your interpretation means nothing, certainly lacks any authority, because you have made whatever scriptures suit you, to contradict:

1 Timothy 2:5
"For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus"

Go ahead...show anywhere in the gospel of Christ, where He appoints anything but servants, or gives anything but gifts of the Holy Spirit, that establishes any office between God and men other than Christ. Let your contradictions be fully known. Go for it.

It's not "my" interpretation - but that of Christ's Church - His Body.
Also - I'm not sure why you misused 1 Tim. 2:5, which has absolutely NOTHING to do with what we are talking about . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

You offer nothing but a rant. No primacy for Peter. He never acknowledged any, and none is ever shown in Scripture. It is James who is the head of the Church at Jerusalem. Not Peter.

Stranger

James absolutely was the Bishop of Jerusalem. However - he wasn't the earthly head of the entire Church.
Peter was (Matt. 16:18-19, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:19-25).

 

[Stranger]

James absolutely was the Bishop of Jerusalem. However - he wasn't the earthly head of the entire Church.
Peter was (Matt. 16:18-19, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:19-25).

No he wasn't. Peter never was given such authority and neither did he voice or act with such authority. Only Rome wants this authority, and derive it from Peter. Who never had it.

The pope and papacy are usurpers over Christ's Church.

Stranger

 

[BreadOfLife]

No he wasn't. Peter never was given such authority and neither did he voice or act with such authority. Only Rome wants this authority, and derive it from Peter. Who never had it.

The pope and papacy are usurpers over Christ's Church.

Stranger

No - Peter was given Authority and Primacy over the others.
It's ALL there in black and white (Matt. 16:18-19, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:19-25).

Look - you can angrily deny it all day long but it doesn't make it "untrue" . . .

 

[ScottA]

It's not "my" interpretation - but that of Christ's Church - His Body.
Also - I'm not sure why you misused 1 Tim. 2:5, which has absolutely NOTHING to do with what we are talking about . . .

And therein lies the problem.

What you call "Christ's Church" was suspect since Jesus called out 5 out of the 7 churches recorded in the book of Revelation. I have given you the specific departure that lead to their error - but you have not received it. Therefore, you remain within the error.

As for 1 Tim. 2:5, that was Paul addressing the same error...and apparently you have not recognized it or received it from him either.

What's the problem - do you not want to be warned of the train wreck up ahead? Do you just want to crash and burn?

 

[Enoch111]

Peter never was given such authority and neither did he voice or act with such authority.

Correct. The entire myth about Peter being the Rock and the first pope is a complete fantasy which has been diligently promoted by the RCC.

Some believe that when Peter wrote about Babylon in his epistle, he was identifying Rome as Babylon. This may have been prophetic since the RCC eventually adopted almost every false belief from Babylon. Hence the insightful book titled The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop.

"See how a religion that was started by Nimrod and his wife spread to various regions, taking on different names, but keeping the same pagan rituals and trappings. These same rituals embody the Catholic church of today." (from the Introduction)

Every Christian should read it, since the RCC apologists attack at vigorously.

 

[BreadOfLife]

And therein lies the problem.

What you call "Christ's Church" was suspect since Jesus called out 5 out of the 7 churches recorded in the book of Revelation. I have given you the specific departure that lead to their error - but you have not received it. Therefore, you remain within the error.

As for 1 Tim. 2:5, that was Paul addressing the same error...and apparently you have not recognized it or received it from him either.

What's the problem - do you not want to be warned of the train wreck up ahead? Do you just want to crash and burn?

And YOUR problem, as is usually the case with most anti-Catholics who refer to the 7 Churches of Revelation - is that you actually believe that they are 7 different Churches. They are the same ONE Church in 7 different locations in Turkey.

Jesus established only ONE Church and prayed fervently for that ONE Church to remain as ONE – as He and the Father are ONE (John 17:20-23). Paul stated on many occasions that the Church should remain as ONE in thought, action, belief, and practice.

What is NEVER supported on Scripture is the man-made MESS that is Protestantism with its tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering sects wo ALL teach different doctrines and ALL claim that they were “led” by the Holy Spirit to teach them.

Finally – as to 1 Tim. 2:5 – the Catholic Church has NEVER taught that we are to consider anybody else other that Jesus Christ as our ONE Mediator before the Father. It’s only lying anti-Catholics like yourself who perpetuate thus fairy tale . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Correct. The entire myth about Peter being the Rock and the first pope is a complete fantasy which has been diligently promoted by the RCC.

Some believe that when Peter wrote about Babylon in his epistle, he was identifying Rome as Babylon. This may have been prophetic since the RCC eventually adopted almost every false belief from Babylon. Hence the insightful book titled The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop.

"See how a religion that was started by Nimrod and his wife spread to various regions, taking on different names, but keeping the same pagan rituals and trappings. These same rituals embody the Catholic church of today." (from the Introduction)

Every Christian should read it, since the RCC apologists attack at vigorously.

Ignorance at its absolute WORST . . .

I absolutely LOVE that you’re touting Alexander Hislop’s “The Two Babylons” as a source of “fact”because it completely destroys your argument without MY having to do a thing.

I’ll let One of Hislop’s biggest supporters and quasi-disciples do it for me.

Ralph Woodrow, who was so taken by Hislop’s rubbish that he decided to write his own book (“Babylon Connection?”) – based on Hislop’s “research”. Not long after, when he decided to actually do his homework for a follow-up book – Woodrow discovered to his horror that Hislop simply made up most of what was in his book.

Woodrow now has a web page dedicated to apologizing for his book, which he pulled from print. See foryourself . . .
http://www.ralphwoodrow.org/assets/books/babylon.html

MY advice to YOU is:
Do your HOMEWORK before you embarrass yourself any further.

 

[ScottA]

And YOUR problem, as is usually the case with most anti-Catholics who refer to the 7 Churches of Revelation - is that you actually believe that they are 7 different Churches. They are the same ONE Church in 7 different locations in Turkey.

Jesus established only ONE Church and prayed fervently for that ONE Church to remain as ONE – as He and the Father are ONE (John 17:20-23). Paul stated on many occasions that the Church should remain as ONE in thought, action, belief, and practice.

What is NEVER supported on Scripture is the man-made MESS that is Protestantism with its tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering sects wo ALL teach different doctrines and ALL claim that they were “led” by the Holy Spirit to teach them.

Finally – as to 1 Tim. 2:5 – the Catholic Church has NEVER taught that we are to consider anybody else other that Jesus Christ as our ONE Mediator before the Father. It’s only lying anti-Catholics like yourself who perpetuate thus fairy tale . . .

Your hate reveals the truth.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your hate reveals the truth.

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

 

[Phoneman777]

To me it is very clear that the Rock Jesus speaks of here refers to the revelation of Who Jesus is.
Therefore it must be the foundation that He builds His Church on and in turn, the reference point for the unity of the Church of God.

Any thoughts on this?

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.

 

[Enoch111]

Woodrow now has a web page dedicated to apologizing for his book, which he pulled from print.

I have Woodrow's book. Pulling it was pathetic. And there is no escaping the fact that Pontifex Maximus was the CHIEF PAGAN PRIEST in Rome. So Hislop was right on the money.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I have Woodrow's book. Pulling it was pathetic. And there is no escaping the fact that Pontifex Maximus was the CHIEF PAGAN PRIEST in Rome. So Hislop was right on the money.

Tell me - what does "Pontifex Maximus" mean?
Also - can you give me the OFFICIAL titles pof the Pope?