ChristiansUnite Forums

And He  (Jesus) is the HEAD OF THE CORNER...........

If the real Christian Church is built upon Peter, the stone (Mat 16:; why would Peter say, Jesus is that Stone, which the builders rejected??

Note the following verses;

Acts 3
11  And as the lame man which was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering.
12  And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?
13  The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.
14  But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
15  And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
16  And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.
17  And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.
18  But those things, which God before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
19  Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
20  And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21  Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
22  For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23  And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
24  Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
25  Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26  Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
4:1  And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them,
2  Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.
3  And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day: for it was now eventide.
4  Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.
5  And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes,
6  And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.
7  And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?
8  Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
9  If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
10  Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11  This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

And according to Paul the other Apostle, he says;

That, that Rock is Jesus, (1 Cor 10:4)(Rom9:33)

Eph 2
11  Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12  That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13  But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14  For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15  Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16  And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17  And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18  For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19  Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20  And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21  In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22  In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

So, this sounds like the church (21........the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple, which God is building), is not a visible, building of any sort, as many claim..

And Peter, agrees all of with this..

1 Pet 2
1  Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2  As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
3  If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4  To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5  Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6  Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7  Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9  But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10  Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.


Pretty straightforward..............


Again Paul tells us;

1 Cor 3
11  For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12  Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13  Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14  If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15  If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
16  Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

I think, that, those who teach Peter is the rock, have stumbled  both, at the stumblingstoneof Rom 9:33, and at the word, also at 1Pet 2:8.


Blessings,  

Petro

Real Good

Thanks Petro

Brother Love :)

Amen, Bro,

This is Gods Word.

And we can't , better yet, should not argue with Gods Word.

Amen??

God Bless,
Petro

Amen & Amen

Brother Love :)

Petro-

You know its ironic (and not just a little bit hypocritical) to blast others for "not having Jesus as their final authority" (as you did Asaph on the 'Who Knocks' thread) and then turn around and post this foolishness.  Are Jesus' own words not enough for you?!  Apparently not.  However, your posts are based on a faulty premise and a misreading of scripture.

Matt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

In this verse, rock is translated from the greek word petra.  From Strong's, petra means:

1) a rock, cliff or ledge
        a) a projecting rock, crag, rocky ground
        b) a rock, a large stone
        c) metaph. a man like a rock, by reason of his firmness  and strength of soul

Acts 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

Or, in a more easily understood translation:

He is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone." (NIV)

Here, stone is translated from the Greek word lithos, which according to Strong's means:

1) a stone
       a) of small stones
       b) of building stones
       c) metaph. of Christ

Here we can plainly see your error.  Two very different words, with two very different meanings.  One refers to rock in the ground, perhaps boulders or even bedrock.  The other, to a stone that is not in the ground, a finished stone - one ready for building.  What really highlights the different meaning is the latter half of Acts 4:11 - "which is become the head of the corner."  In the NIV, that is rendered more understandably by simply calling that phrase "the capstone."  The capstone is the final piece of a building.  Metaphorically, it is the final piece of the puzzle or the crowning achievement.  Peter and Jesus are talking about two very different things.  Jesus is stating that Peter will be the foundation of the early church, upon him will rest the authority to bind and loose.  He is the human leader that will lead the new Christians.  Peter, however, is talking about the longview of God's plan.  He is telling the Jews that they have believed in God up until Jesus - and Jesus is the final piece.  He is the fulfillment of OT prophecy, and not only is He the Messiah, but He is also the Son of God.  He is the Savior of the world - and the Jews aren't seeing that.  Hence, they have rejected the stone (little stone, since Jesus was unassuming and was not the conquering general the Jews hoped for) who has become the capstone (crowned with glory, given the highest place, etc).

I won't toss out the petty insults you so frequently employ with others who disagree with you, but I do wonder about your grasp of scripture.....

pnotc,

You sound as if you want to argue, again;  how intelligent must one be to work in intelligence anyhow.

You do greatly error not knowing the scriptures, and it is evident why............you like the word.

One of the reasons, I don't use the NIV, as the final authority for this verse, is this very reason, that the word translated "capstone" is not the same as the "cornerstone", as you explained,

One is the final stone in a column, and the other the being the first foundation stone, set perfectly plumb and level, to support the entire structure to be built.

A Capstone does not support anything.  So it can hardly be used as representative of Gods principle foundation stone to the building He is constructing.

Eph 2     KJV
18  For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19  Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20  And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21  In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22  In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.    

Eph 2    NIV
20  built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Cheisr Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

PS   Peter was included "on the foundation" also, he is not the finishing touch of this building at all.. and just because Catholics want him to be, it won't change this truth one IOTA..


Thanks for your opinion anyhow.

Petro

pnotc,

I had to get my Greek-English Interlinear, and with reagrd to Acts 4:11

it reads as follows;

"cornerstone"  not "capstone", at all.

The NIV in the margin, says or, cornerstone

The same word, in the NIV, at 1 Pet 2:6, is translated;

conerstone

I wouldn't put alot of stock in the NIV

capstone translation for cornerstone

It simply is a bad translation by the Anglican Translators Westcott and Hort, who leaned towards Mariology.  The JW's put alot stock on this work, it has many translation errors.

I use it as reference source only, know..



Petro

Petro-

I agree that the NIV is not the most reliable translation.  Had I more time, I would have searched other translations for my post.  You raise a good point, that my analogy was not correct.  However, you are still mixing your metaphors, as your own posts rightly show.  

Your argument focused on "rocks" and "stones."  I showed you that the words are different, and as such, do not mean the same thing in the verses that you initially referenced.  You simply supported my argument even further.  Whether the cornerstone or the capstone, that reference is still vastly different from Jesus' statement about Peter and the church.  That is not my opinion; it is clear fact.  Jesus, in Acts, is a finished stone, be it the first one of a building or the last.  Peter, per Christ's own statement, is a rock, a boulder - bedrock.  You may seek to reject Christ's words on the matter based on your own obvious bias against Catholicism which has abused that verse to support papal dogma.  I, however, do not confuse the two.  Jesus can build his church upon Peter, the Rock, without that implying anything about how the RCC later twisted that verse to its own ends.  

However, for one who puts so much emphasis on scripture, I'm very surprised that you would reject Jesus' own words, as if He needed your correction.  You may not like that Jesus built his church upon Peter, but you cannot escape the fact.  The very verses you cited in Acts shows Peter's authority and role in the early church - a confirmation of Christ's statement.  So why do you reject the Bible's own testimony about Peter? Or do you believe that Jesus' statement about Peter was a redaction, or a later addition?

I won't bother to put my words to the answer which this point which,  more than adequately describes the rock in view herein,
The Word rock is ofrten used figuretively in the Bible to speak of God and Christ.  As Rock, God is the Creator (Deut 32:18), His people's strength (Deut 32:4), His peopl's defense and refuge (Psa 31:2-3, 94:22), and His people's salvation (Deut 32:15, Psa 89:26).
In  the NT, Christ is the Rock from whom the Spirit of life flows (Jhn 4:13-14, 1 Cor 10:4), the chief cornerstone of the household of God (Eph 2:20), and of course the FOUNDATION on which the church is BUILT  (Mat 16:18).  
Ref: "Illustrated Dictionary of the Bible" Herbert Lockyer, Sr, editor, by Nelson Press
Of course if one believes, Peter is that rock on which the church is built, then the verses, which obviously refer to Jesus as the Rock, are not true, such as ; (Jhn 4:13-14,1 Cor 10:4, Eph 2:20).

What else can be said...that will put you on the straight and never path of scripture..
No need to comment on this further, the verse answers itself, the same stone, spoken of  "is become the head; #2776  kephale, kef-al-ay';  lit or figurateivelyl--head.
Jesus is not only the head/chief cornerstone; He is also the 'Head of the Church'
Eph 5
23  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so.....................

So why teach something Peter never considered nor even contemplated or taught.

You arguments are weak, and lack biblical foundation. I think you argue just to hear yourself arguing....


Petro

Great.
Well, lets look at the verse again;
Acts 4
11  This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

It is clear the stone the builders rejected was the foundation stone, spoken of by Paul at Eph 2:20
from the context of this verse,  it is the same one they stumble at, He is the Word, which some christians stumble at, also..

While Peter may be, one of many foundation stones, He is not the Principle Rock/Stone.
You might consider scrutimnoizing the verse;  at verse 15, Jesus asked Peter;
 But whom say ye that I am?, Peter replied;
16  Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. , in other words Peter confessed, He was Isarel's Messiah  and the Son of the Living God!.  Then, Jesus pronounced a blessing upon Blessed art thou, Simon (Son of  Jonah): for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
The fisherman had not arrived at this (his answer) of who Jesus was; through any intellect nor natural wisdom; but because it had been supernaturally revealed to him, by God the Father
And it is here that Jesus, answers Peter, the answer of which many, have gone on to build an entire church, based on there understanding of these passage.
18  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (stone), and upon this rock(petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
He never said I will build my church on a stone but on a rock, and the rock in view is not Peter, he is not the bedrock, or rocky ledge, since he Peter was never declared to be the rock of salvation, but Jesus is that Rock. (1 Cor 10:4) according to the Apostle Paul.
And the OT, declares, God himself is the Rock of Salvation according to King David (2 Sam 22:47, 23:3, Psa 89:26, 94:22, 95:1....
The obvious answer to the question, who is the Rock in view herein, is Peter's confession, not Peter , since it is to His answer Jesus is referring to and, Peters confession that Christ is the Son of the Living God, is the "bedrock" truth on which the church is founded, according to Eph 2-20, this verse speaks of the church being built upon Jesus Christ the Chief Cornerstone, this statement that we are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets rfers not ot them, but the foundation laid in their teachings, concerning the Lord Jesus.
The word rock figuratively used in the OT Hebrew scriptures, symbolically never was used to refer to man, but  always refferred to GOD. And as I stated already, is revealed in 1 Cor 10:4 as Christ.
This thread, in the opening post, refers to Peters references to Christ as the PRINCIPLE Stone (Acts 4:11, 1 Pet 4:8) and both uses of these words, figuratively, differently, the verse which you rely on as "capstone" is not not really an issue.
You, can use your imagination to read whatever you like into, the word stone at the verse in Acts 4:11; the nfact still remains, the second portion of the verse points to the CORNER, not the cap, of a stone or corner, and it points to the foundation of a building.  


Lk 22
67  Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe:
68  And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.
69  Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
70  Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
71  And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

you say;

I, however, do not confuse the two.  

Well, thats questionable.


And, it doesn't surprise me, you think so.  You seek to worship at the foundation stone of this church, perhaps even invoke his name, for intercessary prayer; unfortunately Peter had nothing to do with its, foundation.  It matters little what the RCC or Othodoxy teaches concerning this matter.

Since to deny the rock inview here, everything else, concerning the church is off the mark.


Wrong, Jesus knew what He was talking about, and so do we.

Your view taken out of context, make the 'rock' on which the church is built as sand.

And it is debateable because, Peter,  never claimed pre eminence over the other Apostles, and they surely did not recognizes him, as  he lording over them, but equals to him, He never even sat as presiding Apostle at the first council at Jerusalm, James did.  The myth, Roman CatholicISM began with his popeship, it exactly that a myth..

Blessings,
Petro

"I won't bother to put my words to the answer which this point which,  more than adequately describes the rock in view herein,"

What?  

"The Word rock is ofrten used figuretively in the Bible to speak of God and Christ."

Yes, it is.  But it does not always refer specifically to God, and there is no reason to think it either means a physical stone or references God only.  There is the distinct possibility that it refers to something else.  For example, in Deut 32:31, 37 - it refers to false gods.  The frequent meaning is not the only meaning.

"In  the NT, Christ is the Rock from whom the Spirit of life flows (Jhn 4:13-14, 1 Cor 10:4), the chief cornerstone of the household of God (Eph 2:20), and of course the FOUNDATION on which the church is BUILT  (Mat 16:18)."

First, John 4:13-14 speaks of living water, not the Spirit.  1 Cor 10:4 does indeed identify Christ as the Rock that is the basis of salvation.  However, you are using Ephesians 2:20 as a proof-text, and you should have been more careful as to its context.  Starting at verse 19:  

19   So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household,
20   having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,
21   in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord,
22   in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

Taken in context, you can see that your interpretation is somewhat skewed.

"Ref: "Illustrated Dictionary of the Bible" Herbert Lockyer, Sr, editor, by Nelson Press"

I thought you had no need of commentaries?  

"Of course if one believes, Peter is that rock on which the church is built, then the verses, which obviously refer to Jesus as the Rock, are not true, such as ; (Jhn 4:13-14,1 Cor 10:4, Eph 2:20)."

You are incorrect.  You assume a false dichotomy because you are so intent on discrediting Peter that you lump all the metaphors together.  They are different!  The verses you cite from John and 1 Corinthians refer to salvation, not to the upbuilding of the Church.  Christ used Peter to start His Church after his departure.  Why is that so hard for you to accept?  

"So why teach something Peter never considered nor even contemplated or taught."

This begs proving.  Got anything to support your unsubstantiated claim?  There is also the fact that a sign of a true apostle of the Lord is humility.  It is why John never positively identifies himself in his writings - he always speaks of himself in the third person.  Paul does not boast about his visions of heaven - he speaks about it in the third person, as well.  Why should we expect Peter would boast about such authority in his writings when other apostles did not?

"It is clear the stone the builders rejected was the foundation stone, spoken of by Paul at Eph 2:20
from the context of this verse,  it is the same one they stumble at, He is the Word, which some christians stumble at, also.."

Actually, from Ephesians 2:19-22, it is clear that Christ is the corner-stone, but not the foundation.  The foundation is the apostles and the prophets, who were indwelt by the Spirit and preached the Word.  Their work - showing the path of repentance, calling people back to the Lord - laid the foundation that the church is being built upon in Christ.  The corner stone is not the foundation.  It is the first stone laid upon the foundation, from which the building takes shape - verse 21.  

"While Peter may be, one of many foundation stones, He is not the Principle Rock/Stone."

I never said he was.  I simply take Christ at His word, that He built His Church upon Peter.

"The fisherman had not arrived at this (his answer) of who Jesus was; through any intellect nor natural wisdom; but because it had been supernaturally revealed to him, by God the Father"

What's your point?  No one has disputed this.  But, you raise an interesting issue - it was revealed to Peter alone, does this not imply some degree of special favor from the Lord?

"And it is here that Jesus, answers Peter, the answer of which many, have gone on to build an entire church, based on there understanding of these passage."

And this is why you cannot accept this verse as it stands - you cannot accept the Roman Catholic papal dogmas (and neither can I, for that matter) and so you twist the verse to mean something else.  

"He never said I will build my church on a stone but on a rock, and the rock in view is not Peter, he is not the bedrock, or rocky ledge, since he Peter was never declared to be the rock of salvation, but Jesus is that Rock. (1 Cor 10:4) according to the Apostle Paul."

I agree.  Peter is not the Rock of Salvation.  But he is the person upon whom Christ built His Church.  They are two different things, after all.  Do not the similarity of terms confuse you.

"The obvious answer to the question, who is the Rock in view herein, is Peter's confession, not Peter"

Really?  They why does verse 19 have Jesus telling Peter He will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to him?  The "to you" is singular - it does not reference all of the apostles or the Church as a whole, it refers specifically to Peter.  If Peter is so insignificant, why is he being given the keys?

"this statement that we are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets rfers not ot them, but the foundation laid in their teachings, concerning the Lord Jesus."

I agree.  But they taught with more than just speaking or with words - they taught with their lives, with their own life's blood.  They are inextricably apart of that foundation, else the verse would say "the foundation of their teaching."  They are apart of that foundation, just as Peter is part of the foundation of the Church.  

"I, however, do not confuse the two.  
--Well, thats questionable."

Really?  How so?

"And it is debateable because, Peter,  never claimed pre eminence over the other Apostles, and they surely did not recognizes him, as  he lording over them, but equals to him, He never even sat as presiding Apostle at the first council at Jerusalm, James did."

Indeed, Peter never did claim it - but who was the apostle that followed Christ after he was arrested?  Who was the apostle that started preaching first after Jesus ascended into heaven?  Who was the apostle that Christ revealed the abolition of the Old Testament dietary laws?  Who was the apostle that Paul argued with in Galatians?  He may not have held formal authority, but it is clear he was a prominent figure in the early church.  Your history is once again found wanting.

AGAIN,You have missed the point,  Jesus is revealed as that "Rock" which not only led the nation of Israel in the desert those forty years, but gave them the water which was necessary for life;
1 Cor 10                                                                                                                                              4  And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.  (See- Ex 17:5-6)  
The Samaritan woman at the well,  knew what He was saying, you obviously don't ..
We believe in this Rock and have come to Him, as untoa living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
You really, should listen and study carefully the  information that is given you.. Before posting nonsense..
So then, Jhn 4, here is speaking of a literal Rock on whom the Lord stood on, which produced Water for the people after Moses struck it with His staff; this Rock is speaking of Jesus, the Rock..on whom He is building His church ..and we are as; lively stones, built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
This is why we do not need to be members of an orthodox church, and bow before priests, who offer up spiritual sacrifices at their earthly alters..
Whats your point??  I posted the source for your sake..not mine, I didn't even add any of my words to it.
Except to poinbt that to you..
If you deny this, then I can see, why you are out in left field, seeking the truth in orthodoxy, next you will wonder over to buddhISM, this is becoming very popular among the seekers..in this country nowadays.

Not so, it is the Roman Catholic church which is discredited when the truth of the scriptures is exposed to anyone tht cares to here it, this includes the Orhthodox church.
 Oh.......?? According to the Bible, He started His own church and, adds to it daily  such as should be saved.(Acts 2:47)  This is why it is referred to as the church of the living God, or First Born in the Bible, and not the Roman Catholic church, or any other name for that matter.

You don't know what you are talking about.
One must have a little knowledge of construction to understand, or grasp what is being taught herein, actually even an ignorant person, can get the idea, that a building, any building begins with, the laying of a foundation; and a foundation may have more than one cornerstone, depending on what the shape of the building to be constructed on it will have, in this case, Jesus is referred to as the chief corner or principle corner; this means, concerning the church He was the first ROCK of the building which was to be constructed, to be placed, and it (the principle Rock) dictates the position and positioning of every other stone.
Now, if there are any contractors in our midst, they may be able to add to, what I will say;   The foundation of this building is set on a solid footing, preferably bedrock and this is that referernce to the Rock,  of Mat 16:18, which refers to Jesus (not Peter).
At Eph 2:20, it is clear,  we the saints are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets;  well,............ ole buddy,.................. the foundation of these is Jesus and His finished works, He is not only the bedrock foundation, but the chief corner, because the corner in those days was always formed (cut) out the bedrock,  (this is not to say it was cut and removed from the bedrock), but that it was shaped from the bedrock and it, therefore remained a part of the bedrock.
So that the the chief corner, was not only the principle corner, but it was (the chief corner) because it was a part of the bedrock, which was the foundation to the foundation of the structure to be built.
Pay attention now and you might grasp this principle, which Jesus taught at;
Jhn 6
46  And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
47  Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will show you to whom he is like:
48  He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock:

Unfortunately for you, Jesus does not say this at all..  Men teach this, as thou they are taught by God.
The facts is , this truth is revealed to all He choses to reveal it to, it obviously hasn't been revealed to you..otherwise you wouldn't deny it.

More pooop...from you.
Peter (was still in ublief) didn't even believe the confession, he had just made to Jesus at Mat 16:16, (by the way, at this very verse, if you give it some thought, one can see clearly (you might NOT be able to see it, but I am spekaing to those that might) that Peter, who had not received the Holy Spirit yet, had been sanctified by the Spirit, and had been enlightened thru the Spirit by the Father himself as to whom Jesus was, and yet he (Peter) was still in unbelief, concerning the question you have about Heb 6:4-6, certainly by this time he had been a partaker of the Holy Spirit for 2 years. He and the others didn't come to saving faith until after Jesus's death and resurrection..
Your attention is invited to Mat 16:21-23 (a mere 3 verses later), Peter your rock on whom your church is built, against whom the gates of hell shall not prevail,  already had fallen pray to the gates of hell, the Lord rebuked him, with these words;  
 Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.; and remember he who said; Lord I will never deny you, denied Him three times before the cock crowd, on the night of His betrayal.
Sorry Pal, but Peter is not that rock, Jesus IS..

You agree?, Is it because My Father in heaven, has revealed this to you, or is it because you have conjured this answer up??

I am not easily confused...about this; let everyman be a liar but let God be true.
His word is truth.


Does this question confuse you??


Are you confessing here, that Peter is a part of the foundation, not the foundational ROCK ??


How well, I remember; (But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

And to Peter He said;  ......I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. you know the rest of the story (Mk 14:30, 72)


What does this prove,

they all preached and ceased not to teach Jesus Christ (Acts 5:42), and Jesus didn't just entrust the preaching and teaching to Peter, what does  Mat 28:18 say, and to whom was He speaking??


Dietary laws??  Argued with Paul??  You need to read Galatians 2:11-21, Paul rebuked him, in front of them all.
The truth of the matter is that Peter, was the most impulsive, unstable, and incontinent of the lot;
He is remembered as the one who said;
Thou shalt never wash my feet.(Jhn 13:8)

Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. (Mat 26:35)

Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.  30  But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. (Mat 14:28,30)

He was no more prominent that the Apostle Paul, nor John, James, Phillip, or any of the others.

You sound like one of those who argued, I am of Paulr, because he baptized me.  

I am sure knowning this Apostle,  he would echo, Pauls words to you and others; (read 1 Cor 2:12-30)

Blessings,
Petro

JOHN, SKIP THIS THREAD!! Read Rom. 2:1-3!!
Re/Read Titus 3:9-10 :'( VAINITY is 'an heretick'!
Thanks for reminding me Lord :) Rom. 8:14

Yes, I am one more here Lord, that is 'sick' of this kind of Lukwarm Spewed OUT 'love' for you, my Master'. See Rev. 3:16-17.

---John

”The Samaritan woman at the well,  knew what He was saying, you obviously don't ..”

No, I understand it. It is you who failed to read my post!  I said John 4 spoke of living water, not the Spirit.  You said “In the NT, Christ is the Rock from whom the Spirit of life flows (Jhn 4:13-14)”  I said John 4 speaks of living water, not the Spirit.  They are different things.
 
”So then, Jhn 4, here is speaking of a literal Rock on whom the Lord stood on, which produced Water for the people after Moses struck it with His staff; this Rock is speaking of Jesus, the Rock..on whom He is building His church ..and we are as; lively stones, built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.”

You want to break that down into a single sentence, please?  Otherwise, you make no sense.  

”This is why we do not need to be members of an orthodox church, and bow before priests, who offer up spiritual sacrifices at their earthly alters..”

If they are offering up spiritual sacrifices, what’s the problem?

“Whats your point??  I posted the source for your sake..not mine, I didn't even add any of my words to it.”

While I appreciate you taking the time to actually reference something, I have to question your motivation for doing so.  Why are you taking someone else’s word for God’s meaning?  Why are you relying on the traditions of men to bolster your claim?

“If you deny this, then I can see, why you are out in left field, seeking the truth in orthodoxy,”

Oy!  I do not deny that Christ is the Rock.  I do, however, take Him at His word and do not twist the Scripture to fit my own pride and ego.  When Christ tells Peter “upon this rock I will build my church” and then fulfills that in Acts and in history, I accept it.  I do not believe that Peter is the basis of salvation, that he is the Rock referred to in the Old Testament or that he is on equal footing with Jesus.  I do not believe that he is the foundation of the Church, but that he helped to lay it.  I do believe that it was through his strength and leadership that the early church grew so quickly. I believe that we cannot disavow him just because the Catholics misuse the verse.  I do not make your mistakes.  
“Not so, it is the Roman Catholic church which is discredited when the truth of the scriptures is exposed to anyone tht cares to here it, this includes the Orhthodox church.”

The fact that you have yet to show any convincing evidence that Christ’s statement to Peter is inaccurate actually discredits you.  You try to set it up so that yours is the only correct interpretation when it clearly is not.  Historically, it certainly isn’t.  Those in the early church certainly accepted the honor Christ conferred upon Peter. And this was well before issues of papal infallibility or authority came into the picture, so spare me your rhetoric.  

“Oh.......?? According to the Bible, He started His own church and, adds to it daily  such as should be saved.(Acts 2:47)  This is why it is referred to as the church of the living God, or First Born in the Bible, and not the Roman Catholic church, or any other name for that matter.”

And it definitely is not referred to as Calvinism or the Reformed church, is it?  I know exactly where your inability to see my points is coming from – your Calvinism.  To you, man is beyond insignificant – he is meaningless.  You chafe and squirm under the idea that God can use someone and honor them for submitting to him, as he did with Peter, because it goes against what you want so desperately to believe.  The funny thing is, for all its claims to piety, Calvinism is more ego-centric and self-serving than any free-will doctrine.  You lay all the credit on God, but then secretly congratulate yourself on your own understanding, believing you have special insight or ability.  Your own posts reveal it!  How many times have you called someone else blind, or questioned their faith, their salvation?  Doesn’t sound very humble to me.  

“You don't know what you are talking about.”

Really?  Upon what is the cornerstone placed?  Wet sand, mud, water, ungraded land?  Never.  The ground must first be prepared for the cornerstone, else its instability will throw off the rest of the building.  You’re so contentious that you must pick at every little thing, never seeing your own errors.  A cornerstone is placed upon a foundation, it is placed upon prepared ground.  It is not just thrown down, willy-nilly.  Christ is most certainly the cornerstone of the Spiritual Body, the Spiritual Tempe of the Lord.  He is most certainly the cornerstone of Salvation, the Rock upon whom we rely for unmerited grace!  And that Rock said he will build his church upon Peter.  You want to change that verse to serve your own interests, but scripture and history will not let you.  I do not know what exactly that verse means, but I take it at its word, I take Christ at His word.  He used Peter to build His church.  Fight, chafe, throw your temper tantrum – it doesn’t change a thing.
 
”At Eph 2:20, it is clear,  we the saints are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets;  well,............ ole buddy,.................. the foundation of these is Jesus and His finished works,”

Really?  What of those works which aren’t finished?  Col 1:24.

“Unfortunately for you, Jesus does not say this at all..  Men teach this, as thou they are taught by God.”

This was the arrogance I was referring to earlier.  No doubt you believe you are taught by God, but you must be correct, while the rest of us are condemned idiots?

“The facts is , this truth is revealed to all He choses to reveal it to, it obviously hasn't been revealed to you..otherwise you wouldn't deny it.”

LOL!  Those who disagree with you haven’t been enlightened by God because they disagree with you.  So your interpretation is the final word, your beliefs are the measuring stick by which all else is judged?  If your argument weren’t so circular and ridiculous, I’d almost be mad.  

“More pooop...from you.”

You never did answer my question.  Scared of a little poop, are you?

”Peter (was still in ublief) didn't even believe the confession, he had just made to Jesus at Mat 16:16,”

Prove it.  I’ve noticed you make a lot of blanket claims and assertions, and yet do not back them up.  Prove that Peter did not believe it.  Not that he later failed, not that he misunderstood Christ’s mission, but that he did not believe it.

“concerning the question you have about Heb 6:4-6, certainly by this time he had been a partaker of the Holy Spirit for 2 years. He and the others didn't come to saving faith until after Jesus's death and resurrection..”
So, one can partake of the Holy Spirit and not be saved?  A novel interpretation.  Have any other scriptures to support it?
“Your attention is invited to Mat 16:21-23 (a mere 3 verses later), Peter your rock on whom your church is built, against whom the gates of hell shall not prevail,  already had fallen pray to the gates of hell, the Lord rebuked him, with these words;  “
Christ does not say that Peter will not be prevailed against, but that the Church shall stand triumphant.  Peter is only human, and will make mistakes, just like you, just like me.  It is the Church that stands without fear.
“You agree?, Is it because My Father in heaven, has revealed this to you, or is it because you have conjured this answer up??”

I would have to say its because OUR Father revealed it to me.  Interesting how you phrased that, though.

“I am not easily confused...about this; let everyman be a liar but let God be true.
His word is truth.”
Yeah, His word.  Not yours.  You need to be a little more humble in dealing with others.  You can believe stridently in your theology, and defend it vigorously, without resorting to so many childish behaviors.
 ”Are you confessing here, that Peter is a part of the foundation, not the foundational ROCK ??”
I never said Peter was the foundational Rock, just that he was the rock upon whom Christ initially built His Church.  It does not bother me to say that both Peter and the apostles and prophets are in the foundation, but you cannot deny Peter’s special role given to Him by Christ.

”How well, I remember; (But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
And to Peter He said;  ......I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. you know the rest of the story (Mk 14:30, 72)”
Yeah, how well I remember that poignant scene.  Early morning, sun light breaking into the sky, casting long shadows in the crisp morning air.  The sound of water splashing against the side of the boat, the gentle touch of wind on their cheeks, ruffling their beards.  Off in the distance, a lone figure on the shore, next to a fire.  The smell of charcoal wafting on the breeze.  Peter and the others go to shore, to see with joy and shame their risen Lord.  Christ speaks directly to Peter, highlighting his shame, “Peter, do you love me….”  
Quote:

Who was the apostle that started preaching first after Jesus ascended into heaven?



”What does this prove, they all preached and ceased not to teach Jesus Christ (Acts 5:42),”
True, but he was the first.  He was the first to win converts, he was the first to stand up and speak boldly.  If only for that reason, he is the rock upon which the Church is built.  If only for that single experience.  

”Dietary laws??”

That whole episode with the sheet and the animals on it. Remember?  

“Argued with Paul??  You need to read Galatians 2:11-21, Paul rebuked him, in front of them all.”

Yup.  You don’t think he and Paul got into it?  And yes, he was rebuked, but it was HE who was rebuked and not James, who was teaching the same thing.  If you need to fix a problem, you go to the leadership.  Paul went to the leadership – Peter.  

“The truth of the matter is that Peter, was the most impulsive, unstable, and incontinent of the lot;”

Incontinent?  He had problems controlling his bladder?  

“He is remembered as the one who said;”

Whoa!  If we’re talking about how he is remembered, then we have to bring Church history into this discussion, and that paints a very different picture doesn’t it?
 
”Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.  30  But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. (Mat 14:28,30)”

He was also the only one to get out of the boat.

”He was no more prominent that the Apostle Paul, nor John, James, Phillip, or any of the others.”

History does not support you.

Now that was an interesting post, It Equals FAIRY TALES! :'(
It reminds me of your Babtist daughters? You know, once saved always saved? That is what you are saying about Peter & [your] denomination, huh? It is once saved always saved!
Hog/wash! The kind of 2 Peter 2:20-22  Vomit.

Yet, Virgin Israel of old gave Christ the boot also huh? See Matt. 23:38 And in Rev. 2:5 we see that the candelstick will be removed as Laodicea is spewed out, in Rev. 3:16-17, & that is NOT YOUR POLLUTED DENOMINASTION. Catholicism has ever been in its Rev. 17:5's ABOMINATION OF THE EARTH position! By the way forum, Rev. 1:20 tells you who the 'candelstick' is!

---John

John where,

Didn't I tell you??  but it isn't pnotc's, fault,  he works in intelligence, I trust he doesn't have anythionjg tom do with the CIA.

Pray for him.........

Petro

...all other ground is sinking sand.

I know not why some people want to build upon a mere man and not Jesus who is our solid foundation.

pnotc,

you said, in your closing sentence..;

"History does not support you."


I say more poop....form you.

History doesn't support evolution, but there you have it...


Petro

“Now that was an interesting post, It Equals FAIRY TALES!”

At least it was coherent.

”It reminds me of your Babtist daughters? You know, once saved always saved? That is what you are saying about Peter & [your] denomination, huh? It is once saved always saved!
Hog/wash! The kind of 2 Peter 2:20-22  Vomit.”

I’m not sure what the “Babtist daughters” refers to, since I’m not Baptist, but if you’ll read carefully, you’ll see that it is actually Petro who adheres to OSAS, not me.  So that’s not what I’m saying about “Peter & [my] denomination.”  You need to take up your arguments against OSAS with Petro, not me.  

“Catholicism has ever been in its Rev. 17:5's ABOMINATION OF THE EARTH position!”

I’m not Catholic.  You definitely need to read more carefully.  While I don’t agree that the Catholic church is the Whore of Babylon, I do agree that its theology has gone astray.  And I would hesitate to say “has ever been.”  You (and Petro) may not like it, but you do owe a debit of gratitude to the early church – for whats its leaders did and for what it produced, ie, the Bible and key doctrinal points, like the Trinity.  

”Didn't I tell you??  but it isn't pnotc's, fault,  he works in intelligence, I trust he doesn't have anythionjg tom do with the CIA.”

And here comes the insults as Petro fires over his shoulder as he runs for the hills, since the debate has become too much for him.  :-[  Also, you should read more carefully as well.  JTB is stating OSAS is BS.  That’s one of your key Calvinist doctrines, isn’t it?

”Pray for him.........”

And for you.
 
“I know not why some people want to build upon a mere man and not Jesus who is our solid foundation”

Man, none of you people do anything more than skim a post until you get your knee-jerk responses, do you?  I’m not advocating we build our foundation on anyone other than Christ.  I’m saying Jesus said he would use Peter to build his church, and he did.  I know not why some people want to distort scriptures just because a passage makes them uncomfortable….

"I say more poop....form you.
History doesn't support evolution, but there you have it..."

Get a life, Petro.  You're pathetic.  This is the second thread you've fled from when the arguments got to be more than you could answer.  And instead of bowing out gracefully in silence, or even taking the man's road and admitting your error, you resort to this.  I guess thats what being "old school" is all about.  Yeah, we're definitely from very different schools.  

And just for curiosity's sake, what exactly did you do while you were in Vietnam?  What were the nature and extent of your duties?

You are confused, though.......



You claim to be protestant, yet, you argue in favor of the defining the doctrine, TRUE,  which makes Roman Catholicism and then, argue the merits of idolatry.

I for one am thankfull to God, for his faithfullness, not any Roman Catholic saints, afterall it is, HIS SON's church that I claim allegiance to, not the pope.


Out of one side of your mouth, you did say that, unfortunately, no Bible believeing Christian, believes this to be true.


I was refering to your post where you likened yourself and others to an infant, pooping and needing to be taken care of; I am not opposed to taking care of babes in  Christ, but your not one, you may paint that picture of yourself, but in reality, you want to be a teacher of the principles of Gods Word, ..........but you can't be while wearing diapers...


Petro

Petro-

"You are confused, though......."

Hardly.

"You claim to be protestant, yet, you argue in favor of the defining the doctrine, TRUE,  which makes Roman Catholicism and then, argue the merits of idolatry."

I make no claims, I simply tell the truth.  And I assume you mean I argue in favor of the defining doctrine of Romach Catholicism, which is false.  I said repeatedly (perhaps your knee-jerks were causing the screen to wobble) that I believe Catholic dogma about the Pope to be false.  As for the idolatry argument, you bailed on that thread, as well.  

"I for one am thankfull to God, for his faithfullness, not any Roman Catholic saints, afterall it is, HIS SON's church that I claim allegiance to, not the pope."

Agreed.  I owe no allegiance to the Pope.  Nor does any Orthodox Christian (which I have yet to become).  I too, thank God for his faithfulness.  A faithfulness that was demonstrated in the lives of the saints.  Its a pity you disparage them so; you could learn some very good lessons on true Christianity from them.

"Out of one side of your mouth, you did say that, unfortunately, no Bible believeing Christian, believes this to be true."

More of your ignorant prejudice with no basis in fact.  I would point out that until relatively recent times, no Bible-believing Christian, including the times when there was no Bible, believed in your Calvinism.  

"I was refering to your post where you likened yourself and others to an infant, pooping and needing to be taken care of"

LOL! I guess its true, we see only what we want to see.  My story was a parable of Calvinism.  In it, you were God (I shudder at the thought) and the baby was every person who has ever lived.  As in Calvinism, you told the baby not to do something, but as in Calvinism, the baby couldn't understand it, since it was "of God."  Yet the baby does what it is expressly forbidden to do, just as people sin though expressly told otherwise by God, even though they can't understand it.  And like Calvinism's perception of man being completely unable to do anything but sin, the 2 week old baby isn't capable of controlling his bowels.  So, as a father, what would you do if your two-week old child pooped on the floor even after you told him not to?  As a Calvinist, it should be an even bet as to whether you'd kill it, or forgive it, and likely only reflect on your mood.  With this simple parable, I've demonstrated the moral failing of Calvinism.  Because, if as earthly fathers we give good things to our children, how much more will OUR Heavenly Father give us good things?

I was reffering to pope peter, you missed the pointy again, bubbaa..




It sounds like maybe, we may agree here but, not so, you would pray to your saints, while I would never..and if someone will just listen to you, you would encourage them to trutn from the libving God in prayer, to dead saints.

Who are you trying to kid, the Orthodox church contains in it's stable of saints the same saints the Roman Catholic church prays to, begining with Peter, and the rest of the popes till around 860 AD.

Your fooling yourself...we know what the commandment says about idolatry.


Sorry charlie...

If the Blood of Jesus, was shed for the sins of His people, then all who are saved were dead in sin and tresspass.(2 Cor 2:15), it is not the way you want it to be..

Your poop, is that that is untrue.  That's why it is poop...

You are stuck on calvinism, is it, keeping your conscience from taking your leap of faith into Orthodoxy??

You are all talk..



Later,

Petro

Petro-

"I was reffering to pope peter, you missed the pointy again, bubbaa.."

I'm not sure what "pointy" I missed, but you'll see in my previous post that I specifically reject papal dogma, which the Catholics base on Matt 16:18.  Or on "pope peter" - though Peter was the bishop of Rome.

"It sounds like maybe, we may agree here but, not so, you would pray to your saints, while I would never..and if someone will just listen to you, you would encourage them to trutn from the libving God in prayer, to dead saints."

You may not pray to saints now, but you certainly did while you were Catholic.  And no, you're incorrect, I would not turn anyone away from the living God to living Saints (they are not dead, as you erroneously suggest) - I would suggest they follow the example of the Saints and live their life in a godly fashion.  

"Who are you trying to kid, the Orthodox church contains in it's stable of saints the same saints the Roman Catholic church prays to, begining with Peter, and the rest of the popes till around 860 AD."

Actually, there are some differences in which Saints are recognized, but yes, they are mostly the same from the early church.  How this impacts on a discussion about my alleged allegiance to the Pope I do not see.

"Your fooling yourself...we know what the commandment says about idolatry."

And we also know what Jesus said about judgment.  

"Sorry charlie..."

I really prefer "bubbaa", if you don't mind.  ;)

"If the Blood of Jesus, was shed for the sins of His people, then all who are saved were dead in sin and tresspass.(2 Cor 2:15), it is not the way you want it to be.."

I agree.  We were all dead in our sins and trespasses.  Until the grace of Christ gave us the chance to accept the gift of salvation and be re-born.  However, that is not possible in Calvinism and nor is it true in the story I illustrated.  In it, that baby should be punished - even though it didn't know what it was doing, why it shouldn't do it, and couldn't have stopped itself if it did.  That, my friend, is ridiculous.  You make God a monster - a father that lies (all doesn't really mean all, does it Petro?) and punishes his own creation for doing something they were compelled to do by his own hand.  

"You are stuck on calvinism, is it, keeping your conscience from taking your leap of faith into Orthodoxy??"

Calvinism is keeping my conscience from joining the Orthodox Church?  Brother, please!  I have long since examined Calvinism and found it wanting in every regard - too bad you are too blind to see the error in it.  I am exploring Orthodoxy, yes, and I will go where God leads me.  I'm curious though, if you honestly believe Orthodoxy is idolatrous and that it would be a sin to join it, why do you seek to goad me into it?  Shouldn't you be praying that I wouldn't?  Oh wait, it can't matter in your mind - since if I do, I must not be elect.  And if I'm not elect, why bother praying for me, right?  

How can one reach a person who REALLY BELIEVES this???

"We have NO RIGHT TO ASK REASONS, OF THE CHURCH, any more THAN OF Almighty God, [WE ARE] TO TAKE WITH UNQUESTIONING DOCILITY, (easily taught, led) [WHATEVER INSTRUCTION THE CHURCH GIVES US."  ---The Catholic World, page 589.

And then:
"All dogmatic decrees of the Pope, made with or without his general council, [ARE INFALLIBLE ... Once made, no pope or council can REVERSE THEM]. ... [THIS IS THE CATHOLIC PRINCIPLE, THE CHURCH CANNOT ERR IN FAITH."
---The Catholic World,  pages 422, 423.

This teaching is the TRUE definition of a [CULT}!
Think of he World News yesterday on the report of Cardinal Law of Mass. The report will be in the today news papers no doubt. Upward of 1000 children molested by priests over the years. All in full knowledge of Cardinal Law while he just sent his report in & sent these Priests on to more parrishes to preach  & teach more children, huh? Teach what?? You know? "WE HAVE NO REASON TO ASK REASONS OF THE CHURCH ..."
This is having a DEAD Anti/Christ MINDSET!!

And what is professed Protestentism saying?? (check Eze. 37?) The Swaggarts? Jim Baker? P-l-u-s-s the DAUGHTER(S) of this Abomational Whore? Some with [OPENLY] gay membership, some with [OPENLY] gay ministers?

It is not the CLOSET that Christ is asking you to leave, BUT ALL OF THESE OPENLY POLLUTED DENOMINATIONS THAT ARE IN THE SPIRITUAL DEFILED BED TOGETHER! Rev. 18:4!!
R-E-A-D Eze. 9 :'( :'( :'(

---John

   

Heavy

Brother Love :)

You my friend are misinformed, the first pope of Orthodoxy is the pope peter, you need to bone up on the history of your soon to be new religion.



Saints are dead to your prayers, they don't live to you, they live unto God, they hear only God, intecessation is not what they do for you or anyone else, since they have ceased from all of their works.


Yes I confess my sins from the past, this is why I have forsaken all of it, what I did, in the past I did ignorantly, and have left what I consider a dung pile, of all these practices; praying to saints, kneeling before the alter, receiving ordinances, the rosary, confession to priests, faith in the infallible teachings of popelious, who has  instituted teachings of men as though they be commandments of God, at the foot of the cross of Jesus.

You seem to be looking for such a pile (of dung) to pick up and carry as your righteous works to gain admitense into the presences of the Almnighty.


You said;

"...........there are some differences in which Saints are recognized"

All popes, are saints, except for a few heretics. I suppose you will argue, none of them were heretics.

 
Nothing here is worthy of reply.
 
You have already rejecte sound advise, and bound to do what you desire to do.

The entire you have been arguing here is against the counsel of Gods word, even trying tom prove that Gods church is built on Peter (stone) the Apostle and not Jesus the Rock.

You wrest the scriptures to your damnation.


Petro

"You my friend are misinformed, the first pope of Orthodoxy is the pope peter, you need to bone up on the history of your soon to be new religion."

Orthodoxy has no pope!  Each jurisdiction turns to its own leader, who is not infallible, who does not have the authority to change established dogma and who is not at all akin to the Roman pontiff in status or practice.  Why are you having such a hard time differentiating between Orthodoxy and Catholicism?  

"Saints are dead to your prayers, they don't live to you, they live unto God, they hear only God, intecessation is not what they do for you or anyone else, since they have ceased from all of their works."

Prayer is a work?  And now you're admitting that the Saints aren't asleep and unaware?  You stated that on a previous post, possibly on another thread.  If they can hear God, then they must be aware, correct?  And I suggest you read Rev 5, especially verse 8.  The saints in heaven, at the very least, hear each other and the angels.  This reminds me of that time you said only prayers to Jesus were legitimate, and then I showed how that is no where in the Bible.

"You seem to be looking for such a pile (of dung) to pick up and carry as your righteous works to gain admitense into the presences of the Almnighty. "

If Orthodoxy is a pile of dung, it still smells better than Calvinism.  Also, I do not believe in works-based salvation.  I've stated and demonstrated that several times, so get off it.

"All popes, are saints, except for a few heretics. I suppose you will argue, none of them were heretics."

In the Orthodox tradition, I would imagine that most popes stopped being considered saints after 1054.  You're thinking of Catholicism again.  Additionally, Orthodoxy does not have a formal system for declaring anyone a saint, so I would bet there are more than a few Roman pontiffs who did not make the grade.

"And we also know what Jesus said about judgment."

I think this is worthy of reply, Petro.  Give me your justification for the judgement and scorn you've heaped on me.

"You have already rejecte sound advise,"

I'm not sure what sound advice you're talking about.  Was it when you called me an idolater?  When you condemned me for not believing in Calvinism?  When you said I was blind for not agreeing with your misinterpretations of scripture?  Where in all of that is "sound advice?"  If you had really been trying to help me, if you had really been trying to be anything other than acrimonious and condescending, I would expect your advice would have been accompanied by a lot more love.  I know these debates can get pretty heated, and I know I'm guilty of more than a few posts that did not live up to a Christian expectation, and for that I am sorry.  You willing to offer the same apology?

Good post and explanation of Jesus being the cornerstone and not capstone. So many translations attempt to take the glory away from Jesus Christ by small nuances such as this.

A little history;

Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy claims a direct line of succession back to the original apostles. Also like Catholicism, Orthodoxy observes seven sacraments. Worship in Eastern Orthodoxy is heavily sacerdotal and mystical; what you can't see, we see plainly..and we have been warning you about the adventure you want to embarc on is idolatry, but it appears you can't hear either, so you are deaf and blind, or would you argue this point,  also.

Let me repeat myself;

"You my friend are misinformed, the first pope of Orthodoxy is the pope (orthodoxy prefers to use the word patriarch, so what, pope, patriarch, we know what you mean) peter, you need to bone up on the history of your soon to be new religion."  Following the break with rome, the Patriarch of Constantinopel has always had the primacy in the east (in fact if you checked the record they voted amongst themselves that the patriarch at constantinople would be second to rome among their churches, so, quit being confused your pope is the man you will refer to, as your Patriarch.  (please refer to Ecuemenical Patriarchate)


 I Am not..

You are the one that is having a hard time, understanding, that the roots of orthodoxy are interwoven with roman catholicISM, the founding doctrines to orthodoxy are firmly planted in the teachings of rome, even saint worship, burning candles to them, and praying for salvation to them (mariology), sacramentalism, and the doctrine of transubstantion, which you call something else, but clearly has the same teaching built into it.  

Nowhere, in the OT, will you ever find anyone praying to another man of God, whether prophet, king, priest who has passed from this life, first century christians, never did it either, this practice began first with prayers for the dead about 300 AD, followed by veneration of angels and saints approx 375 AD, in the Roman Catholic church, you may want to will yourself to be disassociated from this institution, but  they are nothing other than pipe dreams, unfortunately you will be married to it, when you join this practice of idolatry (praying to your saints).


The prayer life of Gods speople are the result of God working in us,  perfecting His people unto all good work, and prayer is the evidence that the Spirit is at work in our lives (how is your prayer life by the way?) And every believer who is a priest and king before Him, offer up by Him the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks always by His name.

Those that die in the faith, have ceased from their works; they live unto God by the same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead and will forever worship Him and only Him.


Well, I say you are wrong....here is a verse..you might consider, Heb 13:12-15, I just gave it to you above.  How about these;

And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. (Jhn 14:13-14)  

If you think, this means you shall pray to someone else in His name, consider what Jesus says, in the next few verse; it is because you have  NOT read  the rest of Jhn 14, 15, 16; and I am not speaking of praying for someone else, in his name, that is a different matter.


Well, I can't argue this point with you, since this must be reason why dogs, love to sniff dogpiles, that reminds me of what,  the scriptures say;

But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.



Well ok...what about your patriarchs, are they not considered to be saints??  How about St. John Chrysostom, wasn't he a patriarch pope.

The two schisms which caused the final break with rome in 1054, was;

The issue of Papal authority which had been in dispute for some time, and the dispute over, really because they eastern empire wanted to have primacy (the issue was really one of having power), and,  whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father only (Orthodoxy), or from the Father and the Son (the Western Church); while it matters to me very little to me, what the orthodox position is today, we know the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and the Son,

It is clear from scripture both the Father and Son send the Holy Spirit, so,  orthodoxy was in error at this point and time, when they broke with rome.

As for the saints, to 1054, they included heretical popes, which are saints in both stables, no doubt some in orthodoxy do pray thru these saints, heh...........

Even the same word rome uses (latreia), is used by orthodoxy with a different definition to teach the worship of saints;

In the Orthodox Church the worship (latreia) given to God is completely different from the honor (tim) of love (agape) and respect, or even veneration (proskynesis), "paid to all those endowed with some dignity" (St. John Chrysostom, Hom. III, 40). The Orthodox honor the saints to express their love and gratitude to God, who has "perfected" the saints. As St. Symeon the New Theologian writes, "God is the teacher of the Prophets, the co-traveller with the Apostles, the power of the Martyrs, the inspiration of the Fathers and Teachers, the perfection of all Saints ... " (Catechesis, I).

The Seventh Ecumenical Council (787 A.D.), in summarizing this practice of the Church, declares that "we adore and respect God our Lord; and those who have been genuine servants of our common Lord we honor and venerate because they have the power to make us friends with God the King of all."

The twentieth canon of the Council of Gangra in Asia Minor (between the years 325 and 381) anathematizes those who reject the feast days of the saints. So great was the esteem in which the Apostles, prophets, and martyrs were held in the Church, that many writings appeared describing their spiritual achievements, love and devotion to God.
The scriptures are silent about what the apostles did or din not do, concerning feasts days of the saints, as to what prophets and martyrs are refferred to herein is a mystery.  The point is;

Gods word is silent concerning the worship of feast days in honor of saints.

And as for,  how  orthodox saints are chosen,  it lacks any  biblical support, and they even acknowledge, men do not have to approve Gods choice of who becomes a saint, The following except is found in the orthodox website;

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8044.asp

CANONIZATION OF SAINTS
"The Orthodox Church does not follow any official procedure for the "recognition" of saints. Initially the Church accepted as saints those who had suffered martyrdom for Christ. The saints are saints thanks to the grace of God, and they do not need official ecclesiastical recognition."

I say amen to this..

Yet, they chose them by popular acclaim, until the church issued an edict, to prevent corruption, which was occuring, the article goes on to say; in the same article;

Http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8044.asp .....

Under, CANNONIZATION OF SAINTS;

"The Christian people, reading their lives and witnessing their performance of miracles, accept and honor them as saints. St. John Chrysostom, persecuted and exiled by the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, was accepted as a saint of the Church by popular acclaim. St. Basil the Great was accepted immediately after his death as a saint of the Church by the people. Recently, in order to avoid abuses, the Ecumenical Patriarchate ;

Http://www.patriarchate.org/book/INTRODUCTION

has issued special encyclical letters (tomoi) in which the Holy Synod "recognizes" or accepts the popular feelings about a saint. Such an example in our days is St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain (1955)."

(By the way your arguments, claiming Mat 16:18, refer to Peter as the rock on which the church was to be built goes against some orthodox teaching, but since orthodoxy is born out of catholicism, and they claim apostolic foundation, it is thru the founding lineage which is Peter the first pope as claimed by CatholicISM. Just as he is the first pope for rome, he is the first  patriarch for constantinopal at rome.)   If your not confused yet, you will be ..


If we lived in the OT, I would have been duty bound to throw the first stone, at you for wanting to lead my brothers to go a whoring after deceased men of God, and icons.

But, since we live in the NT, I am duty bound to expose your error, and since you have not recanted, but continue this nonsense by argueing in favor of  saint and icon worship,by claiming it  is Biblical,  according to 1 Cor 5,  your desire to turn men of faith in God away from His word and teaching, by desiring that they listen to your word, claiming that it is of God, to pray to men as though they can intercede for men,  makes you and idolater, and since you claim to be a member of the body, the apostle has written;

11  But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.   Eat means to partake of the Word of God.

And you seek  acceptance as a brother (even claiming His blood, while denying the commandment) among those who claim to be of the body of Christ, yet, come teaching other doctrines, which lead not to Christ but away from Christ.  He and He alone is to be our intercessor. Praying to God, thru anyone other than thru Christ, does not honor God nor Christ.

It is unbiblical, and of no value to Christians..period.

It matters little, if you think it might..it is only wishfull thinking, and not much of that either..


You are the one that has been arguing against Calvinism, I never have spoke to you about it at all, except to tell you if you believed what scripture teaches, you would understand the teaching, and believe what Calvin taught..and would amaze yourself, that you were wrong all along.

Your argument from the beginning has been, that praying to or thu saints is of God.

I Say nonsense.


I forgive you, and I ask your forgiveness for the very same thing..

My desire is that you understand, Idolatry is Idolatry, whether you agree with me or not, I disagree with you on praying to or thru saints, and the worship of icons, I don't care what word you use to describe what it is you will do (latreia, venerate, honor, esteem, worship but not the type of worship do God (whatever that means), etc, etc.), when you join this church, but it is crystal clear to me ,

That this practice instituted in CatholicISM when orthodoxy was a dream in satans plan, exist to this day in both institutions, with very little of it  changed (except for the redifining  one or two words) since being set in stone at the seventh ecumenical council (787); if this insults you, for it I apologize, but I can't make it any clearer than that.

Blessings,
Petro

PS:  You see, how I have to go dig out, what orthodoxy believes and teaches, just to post it hear for your sake; and all when I don't even care about orthodoxy, or catholicISM, I am interested in what God's word has to say.  But I don't consider it a total waste of time, if just one person reads one word which helps them to see the error of the teachings.

pnotc,

The final point I want to make about this idea, that saints in orthodoxy, where chosen by popular acclaim, completely, puts this matter of who is a saint in mans hands; and all this after claiming mans approval is not required to allow God His choice of who is a saint or no.

At least the Apostle drew straws, when chosing a succesor to Judas Iscariot, the lot fell of Matthias the scripture tells us (Acts 1:26), and I have to say this is a more God honoring way, because at least it can be said, God could have had the opportunity to get his 2 cents in edge wise .

Yet, either way, mans choice came to naught, since God chose Paul to take Judas Iscariot's place, we never hear about Matthias, in the scriptures again..

God Bless as you stufdy His word.
Petro

Just thought I'd stick my oar in a point out a few of the more glaring errors in the last few posts:

There is a huge difference between the E. Othodox concept of Patricarch and the RC concept of a Pope.  Most notably Patricarch's are not concidered infallable, and are first amongst equals with regard to the bishops that fall into their juristictions, just as (in the Orthodox view) the Bishop of Rome should be first amongst equals amongst the Patriarchs (and has exceeded his authority to claim more than that).

Of course, if you used a decent bible (one without some of the books taken out) you would find biblical authority for this.

The early church clearly DID recognise praying to the saints: the Shepherd of Hermas talks about it, and that book was so highly regarded it almost made it into the bible.

Also:


The list goes on.
Quite apart from that, the bible doesn't authorise the use of the internet, but that doesn't seem to stop you.

The question isn't who sent the Holy Spirit, but who the Holy Spirit proceeds from (originates from, approximately).  

I'm not quite sure what this says - it really help if you put commas in sentences in roughly the right place instead of distributing them randomly.
Anyway, neither Orthodoxy nor Rome make saints, they merely recognise some people as clearly having been saints.  Both admit that they will have been far more saints that they will never notice.

I'm beginning to think that you think that there is only one Patriarch, which is not true - there are several including Constantinople, Antioch and Moscow.  All equal.

ebia,

One oar will, always have you going,  around in circles.

Orthodoxy claims Peter as its first patriarch, since orthodoxy did not exist till after its break with rome, then Peter is orthodoxies frist pope, argue what you may, it doesn't change this fact.


This is your problem what you recognize as decent we, don't even consider it worthy of comment.

But most importantly, your source (Shepherd og Hermas), is questionable, In every case, where  I have examined the refernces submitted by individuals trying to make their point, I have found, the person quoting the source, as misquoting and taking the quote out of context.

So, I say, post what the Shepard said, and cite your source; I am willing to bet you have misquoted Him.

The same goes for Clement of Alexandria..where can this weak quote be found, or is it smething you heard someone else quote, this.



Also:



I don't know what you are trying to prove by these quotes, you seem to have strayed off the subject.  Whats your point??

We were discussing Peter as your first pope...you have wondered off, the mark.




This is the age of information, quote your sources for the information you have thrown around, without citing the references, so we can look at them.


The question isn't who sent the Holy Spirit, but who the Holy Spirit proceeds from (originates from, approximately).  

It is obvious acording to scripture He (the Holy Spirit )originates with the Father and Son, and both send Him, to execute their work, nowhere will you find the Holy Spirit sending forth the Father or the Son to accomplish anything on their behalf.


Thats you and they say, but contrary to your statement, they are made in orthodoxy, by popular acclaim, this is clear, since not every member is recognized as a saint, or honored as a saint, only those whom the church acknowledges, are saints, and have their date of death entered into a list of dates, used to celebrate these individulas dates of departure from this life, is evidence which contradicts your statement above.



I'm beginning to think that you think that there is only one Patriarch, which is not true - there are several including Constantinople, Antioch and Moscow.  All equal.

You never read the website, for "Ecumenical Patriarchate", this gives you the history, of ther Patriarchal system within orthodoxy, your statement again, lacks substance, I am begining to think you don't know what your talking about.


Petro

 Ephesians 2:19.  Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
 20.  And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
 21.  In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
 22.  In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Matthew 7:24.  Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
 25.  And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
 26.  And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
 27.  And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.


1 Peter 2:1.  Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and  hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
 2.  As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
 3.  If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
 4.  To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
 5.  Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
 6.  Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
 7.  Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
 8.  And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
 9.  But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
 10.  Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.


And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;


Peter, the other apostles, and the prophets laid the foundation.


Jesus is not just the cornerstone, but the chief cornerstone.

*1. fundamentally important person or thing: somebody or something that is fundamentally important to something

 
2. building stone at corner of two walls: a stone joining two walls where they meet at a corner

 
3. building first stone of new building: the first stone laid at a corner where two walls begin and form the first part of a new building.*

* Encarta Online Dictionary *

 
Baker's Evangelical Dictionary
of Biblical Theology

Cornerstone [N]

Architectural term used twice in the New Testament (Eph 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6) to speak of the exalted Jesus as the chief foundation stone of the church, the cornerstone on which all the building depends. The New Testament draws on two Old Testament passages about the coming Messiah (Isa 28:16; Zech 10:4). In Isaiah 28:16 the prophet speaks God's words directly to the rulers in Jerusalem who boasted that they were immune to the scourges of life because they were secure in themselves. God said their security was false because he would lay a stone in Zion, a precious cornerstone, which really was secure—and it was not those present rulers. Zechariah expands this promise by saying that the cornerstone will come from the tribe of Judah (10:4). Paul builds on this concept in Ephesians 2:20 by saying that Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone, the apostles and prophets are foundation stones, and the whole building (the church) is a holy temple in the Lord. Peter's use of the idea is more complex, stringing three prophetic verses together (Psalm 118:22; Isa 8:4; 28:16). The stone laid in Zion (Isa 28:16) is precious to the believer, but as the stone placed at the "head of the corner" (eis kephalen gonias), that is, exalted (Psalm 118:22), he is a stone of offense and stumbling (Isa 8:4) to those who refuse to believe. The metaphor seems obvious: the cornerstone is either a source of blessing or judgment, depending on a person's attitude toward it. Some modern interpreters, beginning with J. Jeremias in 1925, take a different tack, separating the two stones and making the cornerstone one thing and the stone at the "head of the corner" another, that is, a capstone or keystone. It is hard to visualize one stumbling over a capstone, but metaphors can be stretched. In any case, the point is that the very foundation of the church is Jesus Christ. This was prophesied by the prophets of old and fulfilled through the incarnation. Those who believe are blessed and those who stumble over that rock chosen by God are condemned.

Walter A. Elwell

"Crosswalk.com"

Corner-stone (Job 38:6; Isa. 28:16), a block of great importance in binding together the sides of a building. The "head of the corner" (Ps. 118:22, 23) denotes the coping, the "coign of vantage", i.e., the topstone of a building. But the word "corner stone" is sometimes used to denote some person of rank and importance (Isa. 28:16). It is applied to our Lord, who was set in highest honour (Matt. 21: 42). He is also styled "the chief corner stone" (Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:6-8). When Zechariah (10:4), speaking of Judah, says, "Out of him came forth the corner," he is probably to be understood as ultimately referring to the Messiah as the "corner stone."

"Easton's Bible Dictionary"


Solomon's Temple:

.....The building was 60 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high.

The engineers of the Palestine Exploration Fund, in their explorations around the temple area, discovered what is believed to have been the "chief corner stone" of the temple, "the most interesting stone in the world." It lies at the bottom of the south-eastern angle, and is 3 feet 8 inches high by 14 feet long. It rests on the solid rock at a depth of 79 feet 3 inches below the present surface. (See PINNACLE.) In examining the walls the engineers were "struck with admiration at the vastness of the blocks and the general excellence of the workmanship."

"Easton's Bible Dictionary"

Contrast and compare this to the temple God is building with those in Christ. Is it a physical building?

A little historical correction….

“Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy claims a direct line of succession back to the original apostles. Also like Catholicism, Orthodoxy observes seven sacraments.”

Yes, both churches lay claim to being apostolic, but no, Orthodoxy does not observe seven sacraments.  In the second place, the most common Orthodox term is “mystery” not sacrament.  In the first place, Orthodoxy does not designate 7 and only 7 mysteries; it recognizes at least 7.  This is because Orthodoxy is not as law-minded as Catholicism, thanks in large part, to a very different definition of original sin.  Catholicism has been heavily influenced by Augustinian thought, which looked at original sin in a purely judicial sense.  Orthodoxy has a different definition, wherein we inherit the effect, but not the guilt of Adam’s sin.

“Worship in Eastern Orthodoxy is heavily sacerdotal and mystical; what you can't see, we see plainly..and we have been warning you about the adventure you want to embarc on is idolatry, but it appears you can't hear either, so you are deaf and blind, or would you argue this point,  also.”

How is sacerdotal and mystical worship idolatrous?  Additionally, I see quite plainly that Calvinism is wrong and its teachings unbiblical – a fact I have warned YOU about.  Are you deaf and blind, as well?  I’m sure you will say that you are not, as do I, so lets just stick to things we can prove.  

“Following the break with rome, the Patriarch of Constantinopel has always had the primacy in the east (in fact if you checked the record they voted amongst themselves that the patriarch at constantinople would be second to rome among their churches, so, quit being confused your pope is the man you will refer to, as your Patriarch.”

He has had primacy of honor, not authority.  The voted to put the Ecumenical Patriarch behind Rome in honor, not authority or power.  In the Orthodox tradition, the head of another jurisdiction cannot meddle in the internal affairs of another jurisdiction.  He has no authority to do so, and no Orthodox Christian would recognize the edicts of someone from another jurisdiction.  You are clearly confused on the form of the Orthodox church.

“You are the one that is having a hard time, understanding, that the roots of orthodoxy are interwoven with roman catholicISM, the founding doctrines to orthodoxy are firmly planted in the teachings of rome, even saint worship, burning candles to them, and praying for salvation to them (mariology), sacramentalism, and the doctrine of transubstantion, which you call something else, but clearly has the same teaching built into it.”

Your statement is actually pretty interesting.  For all your obvious hatred of Catholicism, you still hold it in prejudicially high regard.  The fact is, the teachings of Catholicism have their roots in Orthodoxy, not the other way around.  The Christian East developed intellectually and theologically much faster and in greater depth than did the Christian West.  It was not until well past the canon was formed and the essential creeds were drafted that the West started to pick up its slack and get on an intellectual par with the East.  If I may, I would suggest a set of church history books by Jaroslav Pelikan.  He is an excellent author and historian – and very objective.  

“Nowhere, in the OT, will you ever find anyone praying to another man of God, whether prophet, king, priest who has passed from this life, first century christians, never did it either, this practice began first with prayers for the dead about 300 AD, followed by veneration of angels and saints approx 375 AD,”

In a later post, you chided Erbia for failing to back up her post with references.  Would you mind posting support for your position?  I’d like to see your evidence that this practice developed so late.  In fact, if you can, it would go a decent ways of dissuading me of the truth of Orthodoxy.  



“The prayer life of Gods speople are the result of God working in us,  perfecting His people unto all good work, and prayer is the evidence that the Spirit is at work in our lives (how is your prayer life by the way?)”

So when a saved Christian dies, God no longer works in them?  If prayer is evidence of the process of being perfected, doesn’t it make sense that they would continue to pray once perfection has been granted to them?  Certainly their prayers would take on a different form, but is it reasonable to belief they would cease from prayer, from communication with God?  Hardly.  And actually, my prayer life has expanded quite a bit since I started exploring Orthodoxy.  They put a much greater influence on it than does Protestantism, and in a different way.  

“Well, I say you are wrong....here is a verse..you might consider, Heb 13:12-15, I just gave it to you above.  How about these;
And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. (Jhn 14:13-14)”

I’m not sure how the Hebrews verse you referenced prevents petitioning the saints.  But actually, I’ve read the NT several times, so I have read John 14, 15 and 16.  And while I’m not 100% on this, I don’t think the Orthodox petition the saints in Christ’s name.  I’m pretty sure they don’t.  Maybe they do in Catholicism, but not in Orthodoxy.  Also, as we discussed in my class this last week, the word prayer is actually inappropriate in its modern usage as it concerns petitioning the saints.  Prayer initially had a wider definition than it does now.  In my opinion, the better term is “petitioning” as it regards asking for the intercession of the saints.  

“while it matters to me very little to me, what the orthodox position is today, we know the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and the Son,”

Prove it.

“It is clear from scripture both the Father and Son send the Holy Spirit, so,  orthodoxy was in error at this point and time, when they broke with rome.”

Then the church was in error since Nicene I.  This includes your beloved Catholicism.  

“Even the same word rome uses (latreia), is used by orthodoxy with a different definition to teach the worship of saints;”

They may use the same word for worship or adoration of God, but the Orthodox use a different term for veneration of the saints. We’ve gone over this ground before.  You’ll keep repeating yourself that proskynesis is proskuneo, while I will repeat (again) that you are wrong since they are obviously different, though related terms.  They are different in practice, form and intent.  Must we re-hash this ground?

I am, unfortunately, short on time tonight.  I will respond to the rest of your posts later.  

Pope does not equal patriarch, however many times you claim it does.

I accept that you don't consider those books canonical.  I think it pretty sad that you consider books that were included in the scriptures used by St Paul and many other bilical authors unworthy of comment.


I'll have to get back to you on that.

Remind me if I forget.
In the mean time, perhaps you would care to provide some evidence that early christians did not petition the saints.

I was addressing your point about praying to saints, if you remember.


Like I said above, I'll have to get back to you on that - I didn't bookmark the pages.


Can you really not see the difference between progress (in the sense used in the creed) and sent?
Obvious is a very unreliable indicator, particularly when applied to something and non-intuitive as the nature of the Trinity.

This is simply not true, but I don't have the time at the moment to dig out "proof".

That will have to do for now - must get dinner.

Finding orthodox websites that talk about this in detail is proving elusive (my information on the matter comes from on-line conversations with an Antiochian Orthodox priest, and is therefore not presentable as evidence).
So for the moment I will have to withdraw my assertion that I can prove the Othodox position on this.

Never the less, I believe you are reading into that statement things not intended by its author.

I do, but I may not have expressed it as clearly as I might have.  Comes of writing stuff in a hurry.

Ollie,

Very Good,

This, your post from Baker's ED, reminded me of this verse in the book Daniel 2.

34  .....................a stone was cut out ( of the mountain [vs 45]) without hands,...........

Refers; ..................to Jesus,

He at His return to earth will destroy the four kingdoms (in Nebuchadnezers vision at Dan 7 which are described as great beasts) and will establish an everlasting kingdom and will rule over the whole earth.

Peter is not this stone, and never will be, neither is he the Rock, of Mat 16:18.

But Jesus is,

The fact some place there faith, in Peter as founder of Christ's chuch, reveals their faith be to in there membership to a church,  not membership to a body, and this is because these walk by sight and not by faith.

 In the first, above (membership in a church, is something anyone can do under their own power, after all how hard is it to join a church??,  pnotc is being indoctrinated presently);  the latter,  that of being born of the Spirit of God,  is something God does,  remember;

"thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." (Mat 1:21)

These characters ebia, pnotc;

make themselves willingly ignorant concerning this fact, in spite of the fact, it is written that they might believe, Jesus is the Christ, they claim to know God, but deny His word.

Rom 1
21  Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Blessings,

Petro

ebia,

I am not reading more into what these plain words explain simply.

But i did notice you are adding words to my quotes.

I never wrote:

This is simply not true, but I don't have the time at the moment to dig out "proof".

But it is OK, cause I know, what you mean when you say,

"Comes of writing stuff in a hurry."

The reason you cannot reliable sites on orthodoxy is because the eastern othodox church has never had an ecumenical council, to iron out doctrine, in reality the reason why there is so much confusion within these institutions, is because some  Eastern Christians who have returned to communion with the pope are called Eastern Catholics (they do recognize the pope as infallible), or Uniates; and in every respect apart from this obedience to Rome, they resemble their Orthodox counterparts.

I might add a few of these churches have sprouted in this country, and call themselves orthodox.

In 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople lifted mutual excommunications dating from the eleventh century, and in 1995, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople concelebrated the Eucharist together. John Paul II, the first Slavic pope, has made the reconciliation of Eastern and Western Christendom a special theme of his pontificate, and he has released a large number of documents and addresses honoring the contributions of Eastern Christendom and seeking to promote unity between Catholics and Orthodox.

If Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, are as different as you make it out to be, how can these two share the eucharist together, since we know, the eucharist  is celebrated only during the Mass and as taught by Catholicism is,  according to their teaching;

"In the Mass (refferring to the eucharist) is a true proper and propitiary sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead"  

Quoted in the summing up of the doctrine of the Mass by  Pope Pius IV confirming the decree of the Council of Trent at the conclusions of their sessions;  Council of Trent 22d session 1562 AD, passed a decree containing 9 explanatory chapters, and 9 canons

Petro

I think you are.  The fact that Orthodoxy doesn't recognise people as saints does not necessarly imply that those who are not recognised are not saints, but rather that they don't know whether they are saints or not.  Big difference.

Yeh. Sorry.  That line got on the wrong side of the end quote.

I am quite aware of Eastern Rite Catholics.   I don't see what they have to do with the question under discussion though.

If you say so.  I'm not in this country, and the only one's I've encountered have called themselves Catholic, not Orthodox.

There's no shortage of true Othodox churches here though, including heaps of Greek Orthodox and Macedonian Othodox and a sprinkling of Serbian, Russian, Antiochian, etc.
Surely this is off the topic though.

I suspect there are other reasons why getting this sort of info on Orthodox churches is much more difficult than (say) RC's, but that would be off topic too.

I don't believe they do.  The RCC allows Orthodox members to take communion (with reservations) at Catholic services.   If I remember correctly, the reverse is not true.


That is a summary, that hides a heck of a lot of information behind those words that could be misinterpreted.

I couldn't say whether or not the Orthodox church is happy with that statement, though.

Orthodoxy has a lot in common with Catholicism.  I've never claimed otherwise.

Some key differences are:
1.  Volume of dogma.  The RCC has buildings full of dogma that you (at least in theory) sign up for if you are a member.  You are supposed to believe all of it to be true if you are a good Catholic.
Orthodoxy, on the other hand, has very little dogma and lots of doctrine (stuff the church teaches, but you can be a member in good standing and still disagree with).
2.  Papal infalibility.  The Orthodox church does not accept that any individual is infalible in the manner that the RCC claims for the Pope.  They also don't accept that the Pope (or any other bishop) has authority outside his juristiction.
3.  <can't remember what I was going to write here>

ebia,

The very Greek word "papas", means pope, first point.

Second point is, since orthodoxy is so fractured, that the Patriarch (pope) at Constaniple, where he is honored, holds authority, and where he is not, he has no authority, in this country, this religion is fairly new and novel, attracting the religious, who are impressed with pomp and circumstance, so the Patriarch who held primacy before there were all these churches which took up the name and cause came to exist, held this honor and authority, just cause you say it isn't so, doesn't change this at all. The fact is the very idea they recognize primacy to a particular patriarch pope, is because they rejected romes claim since they wanted this honor to themselves in the east.


What is sad, is that you, living in the information age, would be so misinformed about this matter. The oracles of God was given to the Jew, so it stands to reason the OT cannon, would be verified against what the Jews considered to be inspired, and what you refer as the scriptures used and read of by the Apostles as well as Jesus himself, are known as the and defined as "The Palestinian Cannon", you put your faith in the "Alexandrian Canon" with was the result of the diaspora, it came later, and was never considered canon, until the fourth century by the Roman Catholic church.  Get your historical facts right, and you will understand what truth is.


Post your source and the quote and we will see, how distorted the teaching is from what was actually written by these early christians.


I will give you the same verses I gave pnotc,

Jhn 15:26, and Jhn 10:30.  

If you believed Jesus is one and the same as the Father, the Holy Spirit proceedeth from both.  

I bet you would claim to believe in the trinity??  Yet, it appears you really don't, or do you??

Now I am confused, you said you knew what you believe.  So can you square this up??

The trinity is Father , Son and Holy Ghost, clearly Jesus teaches in both of these verses, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, and the Son,

Note, Jesus words at Jhn 15:26,  "whom will send unto you from the Father"

It is a mystery, which cannot be comprehended completely by any man, clearly  Jesus taught He himself proceeded from the Father, and yet, He taught also, He and the Father were ONE. (Jhn 8:42, Jhn 1o:30), Yet nowhere will you find the Holy Spirit sending the Father or the Son.

And yet the Holy Spirit shares the perjogatives of the Father and Son, He is refered to as God in  (Acts 5:3-4); and in Acts 8:29 sent Phillip to the Ethiopian Eunuch, He separated and called Barnabas, and Saul, for the work HE called them.(Acts 13:2-4)

So to teach anything other than what the scriptures teach, is error, this church (orthodoxy) is in is founded on the error of this schism.

Petro




I believe it because it is written..pure and simple.
 

pnotc,

As I stated, Orthodoxy believes and practices 7 sacraments, just like the Roman Catholic Chruch do, they are the same sacraments, with diferent names, ;

Whether you know or believe this, doesn't matter at all the record is there and true.

Here is the website;

Http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7105.asp

1. Holy Eucharist
2. Holy Baptism
3. Holy Confirmation In orthodoxy this is refferred to as Chrismation]
4. Holy Confession
5. Holy Marriage
6. Holy Orders
7. Hole Unction
 
The rest of what you refer to, are simply additional teachings of men, taught for commandments of God, by these men.  And varies from orthodox church to orthodox church.


You can research all I say about the Roman catholic church in the New Advant website, you don't have to take my word for, not that you do, it's all a matter of the historical record of your mother church, remmenber orthodoxy recognizes the first 7 ecumenical councils as binding, a little research on your own will, give you information which will help you understand what you need to understand to be a good orthodox faithful follower.


The great difference which you are unable to see, between a living saint (one who is saved) and a dead one (one who has departed this world), is your misinterpretation, misunderstanding and application of May 16:18-19,

Mat 16
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19  And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Because, you believe Peter is the founder of Gods church,  and according to verse 19, you understand he has the power to "remit and retain" sin, you connect two other verses to this teaching;

James 5
16  Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Give me the verse, which you rely on to teach believers are to confess sin to each other.

Jhn 20
23  Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

From these verses Catholicism and orthodoxy has built this huge sacerdotal, priestly doctrinal system (and this is the whole reason for having priests) , since they are gods reprasentatives, who expiate sin, and offer up the liturgy,  execute the sacraments, especially Hoily communion upon the confession of sin.

What you fail to see, is that, the "keys of the kingdom" at vs 19, refers to the authority to proclaim the terms of salvation in Christ.

This is the privilege and duty of every Christian believer, because we have been made "Kings and Priests" in Christ Jesus, and this is a doing of God thruogh the the Spirit.

The authority to bind and loose is first and foremost the commission to proclaim the gosple which liberates those who believe it, and consigns to bondage those who reject it.
Orthodoxy does not recognize, the run of the mill faithful as a saint, but does cannonize those whom they perceive to have been great teachers, leaders in their office as priest, patriarch, or someother office within their church , giving them the privilege of being one who can confess sin, and even , you deny this but, this is the whole reason for the sacerdotal system.

The Sacrament of confession, is not exercised to any other than a priest, you will claim, but, the priest doesn't have the authority to forgive sin, he is only a witness; but this explanation does not square up with scripture.

Withregard to the receiving of Holy Communion, it cannot be received according to the teaching of the scrament, since sin has to be decalred "absolved" by the priest, who upon peforming the Sacrament of Confession,   Priest recites the Communion troparia;

continued...............

This is clearly seen in the teaching of the Liturgucal text for "Communion Of the Sick in a Hospital" , note the 'text' of the words, in the performing of the sacrament of Holy Confession, followed by Holy Communion;

http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/liturgical_texts/in_hospital.asp

Can a common living saint, perform such a rite, in the orthodox church??  NO, it must be performed by a priest.

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7105.asp

Confession

"Confession is the Sacrament through which our sins are forgiven, and our relationship to God and to others is restored and strengthened. Through the Sacrament, Christ our Lord continues to heal those broken in spirit and restore the Father's love those who are lost. According to Orthodox teaching, the penitent confess to God and is forgiven by God. The priest is the sacramental witness who represents both Christ and His people. The priest is viewed not as a judge, but as a physician and guide. It is an ancient Orthodox practice for every Christian to have a spiritual father to whom one turns for spiritual advice and counsel. Confession can take place on any number of occasions. The frequency is left the discretion of the individual. In the event of serious sin, however, confession is a necessary preparation for Holy Communion."
The Serious sin above refers to the Catholic teaching of "mortal sin" as opposed to "venial sin", however it is clear, confession is necessary before receiving Holy Communion, and sin must be confessed  thru a priest, not a saint, he the priest is a sacramental witnes both to the confession and the asolution of sin, since he then performs the sacrament of communion.


How do you reconcile, the scripture I gave you above to this idea??  And in whose name do they ask to have their sins forgiven??

As for your statement;

In Heb 8:1-4, we see Jesus our high priest who makes intercession at the throne of grace, day and night, since the accuser of the brethern brings those accusations at this place day and night (Rev 12:10);

Jesus according to scripture,  everliveth, to make intercession for us, and it only through His intercession, to God, that all manner of sin is forgiven (Heb 7:25),

It is only by His ministry at the right hand on high that, answer to prayer is obtained, and Christians are exhorted to come to the thone of grace boldly, it says nothing about confessing sin to priests.

Note, James 5:16, the word is "faults" not "sins" is used; there is no basis to believe or teaching, some men are priests and some are not, the Bible clearly teaches all who are of the Body of Christ are Priests. And prayer for the forgiveness of sin, directed to God the Father, in the name of Jesus, is accomplished by Him.

I don't have to prove anything I believe, since it is by Faith I believe it, because the scriptures teach it.

Jhn 15
26  But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

The Holy spirit is the same one that raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 8:11) and dwells in all believers, confirming these truths to them.

Jhn 10
30  I and my Father are one.

You obviously do not, believe Jesus. Because you give more crdibility to mans words.


Blessings,
Petro

Whatever the origins of the word (which I havent time right now to check up on) the important point remains that the RCC concept of Pope is radically different to the Orthodox concept of Patriarch.

Sort out your punctuation and I might be able to parse this.  It might also help if you said what country you are talking about.

The Jews didn't sort out and define their canon until after most of the NT had been written, by which time they had a vested interest in the outcome.
Those NT quotes from the OT that are identifiable (quite a lot) clearly come from the LXX
It's you who needs to read up on some unbiased history it seems.

BTW, Canon only has one n.  Unless you are planning to shoot someone with it.

Sorry - not had time yet.
Don't let that stop you posting some proof that they didn't though.


Talks about sending the Holy Spirit into the world

The Father, Son & Holy Ghost are all one.  By this logic then, the Holy Spirit proceeds from himself.

You don't seem to understand what "proceeds from" means in the Nicene Creed, and until you get that straight, any further discussion on this is pointless.  It does not mean sent.

I do.

Is anything still unclear.


I'll say it again.  Those verses are talking about sending, not proceeding.


Likewise.  

I'll leave pnoct to deal with the rest, because (to be frank) I'm getting tired of talking to a brick wall.

It doesn't matter what the origin is, the scriptures are clear; the word pope/papas, means Father, just because its transliterated in english as pope, does not change that fact.

Jesus said;

Mat 6
7  But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
8  Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

Mat 23
9  And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.



Constantinople was the seat of eastern seat of the kingdom, you didn't know this, we are speaking of the Roman Empire, as for the punctuation, LOL..


You have no idea what you are talking about.  The Council at Jamnia aprox 90AD basically resolved this matter,  You my friend simply do not KNOW,  what it is you are saying, but unfortunately it doesn't have to be that way at all.

You are in the dark because you desire to be in the dark on these things.


So long as you understand, that is all that matters..


Talks about sending the Holy Spirit into the world

By Your logic it would, unfortunately it is written otherwise, this why you can read about it, believing what you read is another matter.

Proceeds or proceedeth - depends whether you are using an archaic translation or not.   The original is not in English, remember.

One last time - It has nothing to do with sending into the
world.  It is talking about the Holy Spirit's eternal nature - equivalent to "Begotton of the Father" for the the Son.

I know what & where Constantinople is.  When you say "this country" you are talking about the eastern empire?  I thought you meant whatever country you are in.

 
I know.  And AD 90 is before or after the start of Christianity?

For the rest, until you stop evading the point, I've got better things to do with my time than keep repeating myself or pointing out the obvious, or getting sidetracked into another side-issue.

"FYI

Main Entry: pa·tri·arch
Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-"ärk
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English patriarche, from Old French, from Late Latin patriarcha, from Greek patriarchEs, from patria lineage (from patr-, patEr father) + -archEs -arch -- more at FATHER
Date: 13th century
1 a : one of the scriptural fathers of the human race or of the Hebrew people b : a man who is father or founder c (1) : the oldest member or representative of a group (2) : a venerable old man d : a man who is head of a patriarchy
2 a : any of the bishops of the ancient or Eastern Orthodox sees of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem or the ancient and Western see of Rome with authority over other bishops b : the head of any of various Eastern churches c : a Roman Catholic bishop next in rank to the pope with purely titular or with metropolitan jurisdiction
3 : a Mormon of the Melchizedek priesthood empowered to perform the ordinances of the church and pronounce blessings within a stake or prescribed jurisdiction."
 
Merriam Webster Online Dictionary

Ollie,

LOL, ebia and pnotch, must be the only ones who don't know the history of the Partriarchate on the Eastern Orhtodox church, here a secular dictionary defines, what all of secularISM, knows and undertands the history behind, of this office.


In the definition above all a,b, c, applied to the Bishop of Constantinople, until around 1054, when they finalized the break, when thre east ex-communicated the western portion of the church, followed by the west ex-communicating eastern church, and then both agreed to a mutual ex-communication of each other .

Both lifted their ex-communications of each other in 1965 when the catholic pope visited the eastern patriarch/pope, even celebrated the eucharist with the hosts.

The original battle, which caused the rift to begin with (which is called the big schism,(their were other issues, however) was this very issue of "primacy" the eastern patriarch/pope wanted the primacy because Constantinople was wher ethe emperor had established his headquarters, at that time it was for all the marbles, noit just "honor" as these birds claim, today.

BTW, you seem to rely quite a bit, on the NIV, and some of the modern english versions, what do you think of the Table of Comparison submitted, could it be alot of the verses you post, do not jive with the AV..??

Anyhow, you know what they say of ignorance being bliss, I think this is what affects these posters,here.


Blessings,

Petro

ebia,

No wonder you are reeling from dizzyiness, now you are using the word "begotten";  this was never the issue, you are once again mistaken..

Every Christian knows, the Holy Spirit was never begotten, even orthodoxy would not argue this point.


Sigh.......??    You need to find your other oar..


There used to be a lecherous sort of guy on this forum awhile back, who was a real moron, your old user name wouldn't be Hitch would it by any chance??

I can't believe you would ask such a question, maybe I do..

But anyhow, this council was several decades before the appearance of the Alexandrian Cannon (LOL) , which threw out your extra biblical books, you believe are inspired, ignoring this fact, won't make your problem disappear, if you trust the apocrypha for truth, what else can be said to you, since the truth has been given to you, you can do whatever you desire with it.


What a joke, you've ignored truth, and facts, you have sought out the sidetracks, to argue nonsense, which you embrace as your truth, based on baseless facts.  


Petro

pnotc,
You use the NIV, and rely on it, please refer to, again;
Jhn 14
13  And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father.
14  You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
So, if orthodox believers do not petition the Father in the name of Jesus, whose name confidently, do they rely on for answer to prayer,
If Christians are saved under the name of Jesus, and He is Gods intermediary between  God and man, what other name could any Christian use for petioning God the Father, which would glorify the Father?
Since sin is not commanded to be confessed to saints, how could saints especially departed saints interceded for sins of living saints, this teaching lacks biblical authority.


Petro

That isn't what I said.

Either you are blindingly stupid or you are deliberately misconstruing everything I say.

Either way, there is no point in continuing this "debate".

The WHOLE edifice of roman doctrin of thier 'authority; 'rests' on this 'rock'

DISREGARDING ALL other scripture they hold to this as being the FOUNDATION of their church.
For without it they have NO authority at all.
Their light is in deed GREAT DARKNESS.

Now I have a         .          mole on my arm and its brown.
But if you was to EXCLUSIVELY look at it without ANY regard to the rest of my body.
You could 'argue' that im a 'black' man or negro or whatever may be described.
Yet while I find no shame to be called such yet I am not.
and when the REST of my body is put in CONTEXT then without a doubt I am white or pink or whatever I may so be described and recognised as.

Now I am no scholar so I cannot argue from what I do not know.
Yet Taking my bible which is in PLAIN ENGLISH I see a man called PETER who romes SAYS is the ROCK on which the church is BUILT on.
Yet I see that the Lord had 12 apostles.
Not ONE.
Two I find in the marvelous wisdom of God a man called PETER who is no ROCK on which an ETERNAL church can be built but a man who in the very next BREATH sought by his ne wfound  revalation to disuade the Lord from Gods chosen path.and was rebuked for his pains.
Who DENIED the LORD 3 TIMES.
Who WRONLY chose another 'APOSTLE ' by the WRONG METHOD(which they wrongly folowing do wrongly still!)
For it is clear it is PAUL who was the substitute.
That in matters of DOCTRIN and FAITH acknowledges PAULs teaching as "hard to understand"
In matters of CONDUCT was rebuked publicly by PAUL  fro his hypocracy with the "curcumcision party"

True He was the FIRST to speak to the JEWS on the day of pentecost.
But then that was ONE of the keys to the kingdom.
True he was the FIRST to speak to the GENTILES but that too was the other key.
But where as PAUL clearly says and was the APOSTLE to the GENTILES so to then was PETER the Apostle to the JEWS.

So as a MAN he was NO rock(IN THIS SENSE)STRONG ENOUGH
ROCK  then to build a church ONfor ETERNITY.

But when we look at " THE CHRIST THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD"
We see a ROCK worthy of the NAME on which to BUILD AN ETERNAL church.

It should also be remebered that the scriptures not only speak of THE church as a BUILDING OR TEMPLE but as a BODY.
and so If PETER was the 'rock' on which it was built then gievn that ALL scripture harmonizes with scripture.
Then He must needs bve somehow a 'rock' for the body.
But what do we see?
That it is CHRIST who is the HEAD of the BODY even as He BROUGHT it with His own blood.
and even as the BLOOD is the LIFE of the natural body so too is the BLOOD the LIFE of the SPIRITUAL.

How then is peter the foundation of life of the BODY!?

Jesus said that "f any man heareth MY WORD and DOETH them I will liken unto him as a WISE man who buildeth his house upon a ROCK....."
tHE LORD THEN conecting the doing oNHis WORD as building on a ROCK.
How then is PETER the rock on which the church is BUILT when it is the DOING OF CHRISTS Word which the church is suposed to be doing?

Now is it not written that "wothout FAITH it is impossible to pelease God"
Yet then is our faith to be in PETER or His successors?
or God?
Now ROME would say it in all but name that it shouild be in THEM!
But "faith (IN GOD)comes by hearing and that UNDERSDTANDING the WORD OF GOD.
Thus making again the WORD the ROCK on which THE foundations of our faith REST.

For our faith is NOT in MEN but in God.
But thier fruit is ALWAYS to draw mens TO HAVE faith in EVERYTHING else BUT GOD.

If we look at john letters we see what OVERCOMETH THE WORLD? EVEN OUR FAITH!
iN WHO?
peter?
NO!
But IN Him Jesus Christ the only begotten son of God who is the ROCK not only of our salvation but of the CHURCH AS WELL.

AND THAT ROCK liveth and abideth forever.

Now if more be needed?


Apsotles are FOUNDATIONS of the church.
But the BUILDING does not REST UPON THEM but are BUILT even as THEY ARE ...... UPON THE ROCK!

The FOUNDATIONS give the SHAPE AND PATTERN of the BUILDING.

bUT HERE TOO THEY show themslevs in error!

For where as PAUL shoed clearly in HEBREWS that the old tabernacle MADE WITH HANDS has passed away even asd the PREISTHOOD has.
For they were @after thew pattern that I will show you@
Meaning the TRUE and PERFECT pattern iS in HEAVEN and NOT made with hands and has NO preisthood of the FLESH.
and that we are made AFTER THE TRUE tabernacle and TRUE APOSTLES  folow after THAT pattern OF HEAVEN not one made with hands!
and so if folowing THEM.
have the HOLY SPIRIT.
IF ROME candles.
If of heaven.
A high preist who LIVETH AND ABIDETH FOREVER "WHO EVER INTERCEEDETH FOR US"
and who are "made preists and kings unto God"
of rome.
men and UNLAWFULL preists.
O(f heaven
The fervant heartfelt prayers of a rightous man and the "groaning which cannot be uttered"
Rome
Incnese and "vain repertitions of the heathen"(godless)
Heaven
rOBES OF RIGHTOUSNESS washed in the blood.
rome
vestments and OUTWARD SHOW and "forms of godliness"
The list is endless.


That which is built on 'PETER'(SO THAT SAY)
is built on SAND.
That which is built on CHRIST
is built on THE ROCK of AGES.