Peter says, Jesus is the Stone the builders rejected.

[pnotc]

“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.

[John the Baptist]

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

[Petro]

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

[Saved_4ever]

...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.

[Petro]

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

[pnotc]

“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?

[Petro]

author  pnotc

I’m not Catholic.  

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

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.  

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.

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.  

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

"I say more poop....from you.

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

[pnotc]

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?

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

"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.

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.

"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?

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

[pnotc]

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?  

[John the Baptist]

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

   

[Brother Love]

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

[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.

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.

"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.  

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.

"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.

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.

 

"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?  

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

[pnotc]

"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?

[ollie]

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

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.