blackbird

You are lying. I have no disdain for women or trans youth.

No, I follow the Jesus who inspired men to write the Bible. "Later we read that Peter slept in Gethsemane, during Christ’s agony. His rash act in cutting off the servant’s ear drew Christ’s rebuke. He boasted that he was ready to die for his Master, but shortly afterward shamefully denied with oaths and curses that he even knew Him. And even after Pentecost Peter still was subject to such serious error that his hypocrisy had to be rebuked by Paul, who says: “But when Cephas came to Antioch [at which time he was in full possession of his papal powers, according to Romanist doctrine], I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned” (Galatians 2:11). And yet Romanists allege that their pope, as Peter’s successor, is infallible in matters of faith and morals!" This is history of Peter that Boettner wrote but you can verify it is Biblical. Surely, a fallible sinful man like Peter could not have been appointed Pope, the head of the church on earth, since shortly after Peter was allegedly appointed as Pope, he committed such sinful acts. He denied Christ and after Penticost was sill in serious error and had to be rebuked by Paul. How could that be? How could Peter, the Pope, be rebuked by Paul?

I follow Jesus Christ, the Rock. Luther was once a Roman Catholic monk who God revealed the truth to through the Holy Scripture. Boettner was a renowned theologian who studied these subjects in great depth and knew far more than most people about it. I have limited knowledge and don't claim to be an expert but I can read the Bible like most people. I found Boettner's explanation strongly supported by the Bible. You really need to come out of your shell and study all sides to this with the Bible as the final authority.

Why would the writer of the gospel use the word petros in the first part when speaking to Peter and then use the word Petra, a different word. Petros means a small rock or stone and Petra means a large rock or foundation. Obviously the word Petra was not referring to Peter, but was referring to Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God which he had just made. The church is built on that confession that Jesus is the Christ or Messiah and the Son of God. Peter was the first to confess that and Jesus recognized him for that. The confession is the Petra, not Peter.

Oh really. I think you are again trying to use the same argument as before. This is Boettner's intrepretation which makes sense. If you read the New Testament you will find nothing to back up the claim that the church is built on Peter. I gave you a couple verses which you couldn't deny although you tried to claim something about a cornerstone on sand. That is totally contrary to the intent of the verse in Eph ch2 about the cornerstone. Why would such a verse be undermining Jesus as the foundation. That doesn't make sense. Nowhere in the N.T. does Peter claim to be a Pope or superior to the other Apostles. There is no evidence Peter was even ever in Rome. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and he travelled to Rome. Even in Peter's two epistles there is no mention of him being a Pope or in Rome. That claim is purely an invention of men.

"Using Peter’s name and making, as it were, a play upon words, Jesus said to Peter, “You are Petros, and upon this petra I will build my church.” The truth that Peter had just confessed was the foundation upon which Christ would build His church. He meant that Peter had seen the basic, essential truth concerning His person, the essential truth upon which the church would be founded, and that nothing would be able to overthrow that truth, not even all the forces of evil that might be arrayed against it. Peter was the first among the disciples to see our Lord as the Christ of God. Christ commended him for that spiritual insight, and said that His church would be founded upon that fact. And that, of course, was a far different thing from founding the church on Peter."-- part of Loraine Boettner's book Roman Catholicism chap.5 Jesus often makes plays on words, just as he did in John ch.6

I think we are just going in circles. You would be better off to read both sides interpretation. How else can you learn who is telling the truth? I have to admit I could find all kinds of arguments but you don't seem to be listening. So I have to leave it for now and take a break. Check out Roman Catholicism by Loraine Boettner on the archive.org website. It is free to read. The book would probably cost a lot. But this is totally free unless you want to donate to archive.org Roman Catholicism : Loraine Boettner : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive Section V. Peter has nine chapters on it dealing with various parts of the subject.

I would suggest you do some studying and read both sides of the matter. You only know the Catholic interpretation. But there is another far more credible interpretation of Scripture. That's why Christians sing in the hymn "On Christ the solid rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand." It would be absurd to sing On Peter the solid rock I stand.

So you are actually claiming that where it says Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone is unstable ground? That is completely illogical. Go back and read Matthew 16 from the beginning of the chapter. "13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. " Matthew 16:13-17 So it was Peter's confession that Jesus was referring to as the "rock". That is his confession of Jesus, thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Obviously Jesus is the Rock, not Peter. The Rock that Jesus was referring to is Himself, the Christ, the Son of the living God.

You of course don't believe what has been taught to you by the Catholic church is programming? Isn't criticizing someone for being "programmed" when you yourself are programmed called hypocrisy? Of course it is. Of course you don't consider what you've been taught as being "programmed". Only what I've been taught is "programmed". That's funny. I would recommend you do some reading and learn both sides of the story. If you only know one side, how can you judge who is telling the truth? The Bible is of course the real source of authority and truth. Would you agree with that? "16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16

You are again making things up. You are good at making up fiction. I already explained the world and government system is not a theocracy. Most people are not Christians and we must vote for the least evil to help prevent bad people from taking control. That is why we must make choices in life and politics. There is often no choice.

Where does the Bible say we should not vote for non-Christians or not vote for women? We are required to participate in what we have. That is the political system. We don't get to choose who is going to be our candidates. Sometimes, we have to choose people to be our leaders or representatives in various levels of government who are not Christians because most of the world are non-believers. We try to have the best people in power out of who we have to choose from. How is that so hard to understand?

I thought it sits on the ground but I am not a construction person. Maybe you could tell me. What is the relevance of where it sits? I don't think I am programmed, unless I am programmed to believe the Bible. That would be a good thing. I believe what the Bible says?

That doesn't make sense. We are talking about the meaning of the verse, not trying to dissect it from a construction engineering point of view. You argument is fiction. You are trying to invent something to discredit an important verse that shows Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church. How else could you interpret the verse. What does it mean?

It is important to understand politics and voting is not the church. Politics is part of the world system and is inherently flawed and corrupt. When we participate by voting or supporting a political party, we are doing that because we are trying to choose the least of the evils. What ever we do in this world often involves having to participate in the world system but Christians have to participate to try to diminish or weaken the evils in the world system. If we don't vote, we are just allowing others who don't have any Christian morals or principles to have free reign. We sometimes have to vote for a woman candidate because she may be a conservative and the other candidates might be men but be liberals and NDP which would be a worse choice. If we don't vote for the woman, we may end up worse off.

I'm not a construction expert but in the verse we are talking about (Eph. 2:20), it states quite clearly " 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" I believe when it says the foundation of the apostles and prophets must be referring to the Holy Scriptures which they wrote because that is what we have from them and it says Jesus Christ himself being the corner stone is saying Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church. That verse is referring to the "household of God" in the preceding verse. The household of God is the church or body of Christ, the believers in Christ. Would you agree?

If you consider the verse about the corner stone and the verse in 1 Cor. 3:11 about the one foundation, I would say it makes Jesus Christ the foundation of the church, not a sinful man like Peter.

1 Cor. 3:11 "11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." By claiming Peter is the rock or foundation of the church, isn't the Catholic church going directly against this verse?

No I don't think it sits in mid-air. Let me ask you what this verse tells you? "11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 3:11 KJV What would you say about this Old Testament prophecy by Isaiah? " 16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. " Isaiah 28:16 Who is this referring to?

Prior to Oct. 7th, there was a truce and Israel and Hamas were not at war. On Oct. 7th, Hamas attacked Israel butchering 1,200 people and taking over 200 hostages. Hamas started the war. Israel is defending itself which it has a right to do. What country are you operating from?

There are certain passage in the Bible that are applicable to all people as you said. But there are passages such as 1 Timothy ch2 which we were talking about, which are speaking specifically to Christians. Obviously that kind of message would not have any value to non-believers. Paul, in his letters to Timothy, was writing to churches, not society at large.

What do you mean? I just quoted it. What does this verse tell you? " 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; " Ephesians 2:19, 20 KJV Says nothing about the church being built on Peter. It tells you what it is built on. How do you interpret it?

Dozens of countries have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization. They deliberately murdered civilian men, women, children and babies on Oct. 7th. You do not appear to be a Canadian but a dupe working on behalf of a Communist or middle eastern country.

" 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; " Ephesians 2:19, 20 KJV Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church, not a sinful man like Peter.

The non-biblical source just explains and gives you the Bible verses. When you made the claim "one church established by Jesus on the rock of Peter" were you quoting the Bible? No, that was just your own claim, a non-Biblical source. So you are ok with making non-Biblical statements but when I quote one which actually gives the Biblical verses supporting it, you dismiss it. Read Matthew 16:18. "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. " The Greek word in the original manuscripts for Peter was "petros" which is a small rock. So it is saying That thou art Peter (petros, a small rock) and upon this rock (Petra, a larger rock), I will build my church... Jesus was not referring to Peter as the rock on which the church was to be built. This is proven by many other passages. Peter denied Jesus and Jesus rebuked him for it. Certainly nobody that Jesus would build the church on. Peter was an apostle to the Jews; Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles. " 42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?" Matthew 21:42 KJV