Ollie-

You know very well that this isn't what the early church meant when it relied on apostolic succession.  You can deny it all you want, but history belies your contention.

So now its ok for Paul to have laid the foundation, but not Peter?  

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.  

"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?

I agree with Ollie, Petro's last post really doesn't make sense.  

"Why is the door locked to Christs church in this passage of scripture??"

The verse does not say the door is locked.  It simply says it is closed.  The word that means "open" is the same word that one would use to say "open your mouth" - there is no implication of a lock or barrier preventing the door from being opened.  It does not say "if anyone unlocks his door."  Nor is it locked to Christ's church - whatever thats supposed to mean.  The individual can respond to the free gift of grace - Jesus knocking at the door, by accepting it, ie, opening the door to Christ.  I guess "any" doesn't mean "any" here, just like "all" doesn't mean "all", does it Petro?

"Jesus, hear is not speaking to unbelievers??  or is He??"

He's speaking to unbelievers.  Why the question marks?

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?  

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?

"The found weapon in his armors that he should not have had. Maybe they didn’t find the Anthrax tips Super Atomic Warhead, but we did find clear evidence that they had a program for manufacturing weapons banned by the UN"

What they found were missiles that went about 12 miles further than they were supposed to.  Is that really going to war over?  The fact is, this war was billed on the presence and potential use of actualy, physical, extant WMD.  None have been found.  I suggest you check your facts.

“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?

“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.

”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.

[having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets]

"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.

Still no response to my post, eh Petro?

Petro-

I've noticed an "advancing towards the rear" in your postsings lately.  When I've pointed out the failings in your arguments and the holes in your logic, or your misreading of scripture (Hebrews 6 being only the latest debacle), you simply post an insult and do not answer my posts.  And I'm not sure what you think I do or don't believe, but I assure you, it is definitely no concern of yours.  So how about you respond - just to the portion on Hebrews 6?  Show me how the refers to non-believers.  

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?