Zone1 is the church built upon Peter? HELL NO

ninja007

Gold Member
Aug 4, 2014
9,794
3,035
325
Living rent free in libs heads
Is Peter the first Pope? When you read Peter's statement in context, one understands immediately what he is talking about, it is that simple. Roman Catholicism says the rock is Peter, Peter says otherwise. Peter, the very one to whom Jesus is speaking to states in 1 Pt.2:4 “Coming to Him (Christ) as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men. It was Christ we come to. Peter here tells every Christian that he is a small stone along with the rest of us vs.5,” built up into a spiritual “temple,” and Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone (the rock). Peter quotes Isaiah, the prophet, who was speaking of prophetically of the coming of The Messiah. This question must be explained by the Catholic. God Himself and has built the Church. If Peter really was the “cornerstone “Why didn't Isaiah say “Behold I lay in Rome a chief cornerstone?” Because it was laid in Zion not Rome.This crucial to understand where the authority lies. And what kind of a stone is he that wavers in his faith. So the rock couldn't possibly be Peter who is just man. Imagine no ekkleesia (Church) without Peter? Since when is God so dependent on one man to do his work? God has not entrusted any human being to build the ekkleesia or have it built on them. He built it upon HIMSELF, by Jesus Christ.

It is the stone that the builders rejected that became the chief cornerstone, the rock that the church is built on. As Peter says God laid in Zion a stone a chief cornerstone which is the foundation stone to the building, which is the Church. A cornerstone is a huge rock, this is the rock that Christ was speaking of. And it must be something that is eternal, a living stone to last through all the ages.

In 1 Pt.2:7, “Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious stone (Peter is not saying I am precious) and he who believes on him will by no means be put to shame.” Is this Peter we are to believe on? Peter goes on saying in v.7 “Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, “The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone, “and “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.” They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.” Who was rejected? Christ. What is the church built on? Christ. Who is one to believe on? Christ. Who do you trust and believe in? Christ. If one trusts in Peter they will be ashamed. Certainly not Peter nor any other apostle called themselves the foundation or had one to believe on them. we are told to believe on the stone, speaking of Christ. 1 Pt.5:4 Peter goes on to identify the chief shepherd as Jesus. Not himself!

Therefore to you who believe he is precious but to those who are disobedient (disbelieve) the stone that the builders rejected became the chief cornerstone. Who was rejected? Christ. what is the church built on? Christ. Who is one to believe on? Christ. who do you trust? Christ. If one trusts in Peter they will be ashamed, he is the wrong foundation. Ps.18:31 “For who is our God except the Lord and who is our rock except our God. who is the church built on? In 2 Cor.3:10 Paul claims to be a master builder and says there is no other foundation that can be laid, which is Jesus Christ. “According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

Eph.2:20, “Having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” The cornerstone was a massive rock cut as the foundation stone which is put in the corner and out of both sides would come the apostles and prophets.

The Builder and Maker of the church is Christ himself; as he states, “I will build it”. The Church is a living temple which is a dwelling place for the holy Spirit and we are temple made up of living stones which He is building together. Peter writing to the Christians dispersed through the Roman provinces in Asia (1 Peter 1:1) in 1 Pt.2:5 You also as living stones are being built up to a spiritual house.” Heb.3 “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.” V.6 “But Christ as a Son over his own house whose house we are.” Christ is the head of the house which is the body of Christ. He is the architect (builder) of all things even the church is built by and on Christ. Christ is the head of the body, together and as individuals we are directed by Him, not by a priesthood or a Pope.


The Popes say that Peter was the rock, but Peter himself said Jesus is the rock (1 Peter 2:4-8). He even preaches this to all of Israel in Acts 4:11speaking of Christ, “This is the stone the builders rejected (Christ) which has become the chief cornerstone”, he then proclaims there is salvation in no other “for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” That rock is our salvation, this is what the Church is built upon. Salvation is found in the person of Christ not in the church or in sacraments. It is found in the rock just as Jesus said, he would build his church on this confession. The rock was the confession of Peter’s revelation, this is the very reason why he is commended. This is something the Father testified all through Christ’s ministry. Sometimes it was audible as at the baptism and the transfiguration when the Father spoke “this is my beloved son” and accompanied it by supernatural signs. It is this confession of Jesus being the Son of God that the universal church is built on.

Luke 20:17-19: “Then He looked at them and said, “What then is this that is written: 'The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone?” Whoever falls on that stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.” And the chief priests and the scribes that very hour sought to lay hands on Him, but they feared the people-- for they knew that He had spoken this parable against them.” Have you fallen on this stone who is Christ? Which stone are you on? For if you have not fallen on the stone, it will one fall on you and crush you.

Was (only) Peter given the keys of the kingdom (Mt.16:19)

“I will give you the keys of heaven,” if this means it is to Peter only, than there can be no Roman Catholic justification for it being given to anyone afterwards. Yet there is no scripture that entertains this idea of apostolic succession.

“I will give you the keys” at the time was future tense, meaning after Jesus' resurrection; when He ascended on high, He gave those gifts (Eph. 4:8) empowered the apostles with the Holy Spirit so they may employ their authority under Christ. Peter had the pronouncement of the keys given to him first but not him alone. This power of authority was actually given, not to Peter only, but to all the apostles. This is a delegated spiritual power; it is a power pertaining to all the things of the kingdom of heaven. The figure of the keys is of a building with keys that are used to open from the outside. Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, meaning that he will make him the instrument of opening the door of faith to the world, first to preach the gospel to the Jews and then the Gentiles. In this way what is bound on earth is bound in heaven.


It is Christ the Risen Lord who has “the keys of death and of Hades” (Rev. 1:18; 3:7) He has “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” which he gives to Peter (and the others) as a “gatekeeper.”

The master of the house gives the keys to the steward, but it was not to only one, but many. This promise was renewed and given to all the disciples Mt.18:18. Put in context is about church discipline. Notice it says “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven...Again I say to you that if TWO of you agree on earth concerning anything they ask...” The keys included doctrine, called the key of knowledge. As the apostles were instructed by Christ they taught others, and by the teaching of the Holy Spirit. “Since the power of binding and loosing, which is here conferred upon Peter, is ascribed (Matt 18:18) to the apostles generally, the power conferred upon the former is set in its proper light, and shown to be of necessity a power of a collegiate nature, so that Peter is not to be regarded as exclusively endowed with it, either in whole or in part, but is simply to be looked upon as first among his equals” (Meyer on Matt 16:19; 18:18).
As Scripture teaches Peter is not exclusively gifted with the keys but only first among his equals. For it says that two or more must agree not just one as in speaking Ex Cathedra. Whatever this meant, it was extended to all the apostles and to the Church to practice today. As Christ's followers through all ages have the power to admit into the church under his command Go, disciple all nations, baptizing them and teaching those who profess faith in Christ.

Peter had the privilege to use the keys by presenting the gospel in Acts 2 to the Jews first, in Acts 8 to the Samaritans and in Acts 10 to the Gentiles. But he was called to be the apostles to the Jews which certainly would disqualify him from being in Rome ruling over gentiles. (That was Paul's ministry. If he did visit Rome it was not to stay or rule there.)

To “bind and loose” in the vernacular of the Jews at that time, signified to prohibit and permit; to teach or declare a thing to be unlawful was to bind; to be lawful, was to loose. As the leadership was ripped from non believing Israel and given to the apostles; some things forbidden by the law of Moses were now to be allowed, as the eating of such and such meats; some things allowed there were now to be forbidden. Acts 10:13-16And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.” By God loosening the restrictions permitting non kosher foods to be eaten Peter understands the vision through the gentiles. Peter used these keys in a legislative sense of ‘loosing” as Peter saw God’s spirit moving to declare the gentiles clean. Just as it was revealed to him in previously by a vision in Acts 10:9-48. The Lord was telling him to eat what was on the sheet. Peter refused because it was forbidden to eat unclean animals under the mosaic Law. After three times of the Lord saying to eat because they are now clean, Peter then begins to contemplate what the vision meant. This had a two-fold meaning that the foods once forbidden were now permitted from this Peter concludes as he sees that the Lord had cleansed all by his blood so to the gentiles can be saved.

Peter also used the keys in judicially “binding” punishing Annanias and Sapphirra for their lying to the Holy Spirit.

“Now there arose a dispute among them, which of them was reputed to be the greatest. But he said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they who exercise authority over them are called Benefactors. But not so with you. On the contrary, let him who is greatest among you become as the youngest, and him who is chief as the servant.'“ (Luke 22:24-26).

The Pope has people bow down to him and kiss his ring (this was often a sign of worship). When men bowed to Peter in Acts 10:25-26 he refused them telling them to “stand up, I myself am a man” If Peter is to be the example should not the Pope follow it?

The fact that the apostles had an argument among themselves shows they certainly did not understand that Peter was to be Pope. Jesus had the chance to correct them if this were so. Also, the occasion of the argument was the night of the betrayal- the last night of the Lord's earthly ministry- and yet the apostles still did not understand that Christ had given Peter a position of primacy. Even after the so called “ exaltation of Peter” in Mt.16:16 where Jesus said He would give Peter the keys of the kingdom, less than two chapters later we see that He gave it to them all (Mt.18). Why do this if it is exclusive? Because ALL the apostles were to be the foundation not only one of them. The Lord settled the argument, not by stating that He had already made Peter head, but by declaring that the Gentiles have their head rulers, “But not so with you.” Jesus very plainly taught that no one would occupy any such place as a ruler (or Pope) exercising authority over the whole church. Peter said they will all abandon you but not I. What did Jesus say? Before the night is over ( the rooster crows) you will deny me 3 times. Not a good sign for one who would lead the Church.

1 Peter 1:1 Peter's letters employ his apostleship in the introduction. Because he is addressing churches which he had no immediate connection with him, but with Paul. Paul later states: “For I consider that I am not at all INFERIOR to the most eminent apostles” (2 Cor. 11:5). Notice that Paul uses the plural form “APOSTLES,” not “A or THE apostle.”

The Bible makes it clear the foundation of the church is not on one apostle but all of them.
Eph 2:20 “ having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone.” It is not built on Peter as Roman Catholicism claims. In heaven as on earth god recognizes them equally. “Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” There is not Peter with the eleven, he is included with the twelve.( Rev 21:14)

Eph 4:11-12 “And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” There is no pope mentioned for the church's instruction. Peter states in 2 Pet 3:2 “that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior”

Without the Papacy and the succession of Peter there is no Roman Catholicism. Their church stands or falls upon this teaching. The true Church stands and falls by its teachings and practices of Christ from the word of God in the Bible alone. Jesus said “if you continue in my word you are certainly my disciples.” When Jesus gave this power to the apostles, He meant that whatsoever they forbid or permit in the church would have authority in conducting His teachings. This same authority is written of in the Scripture and used for governing the church today.

AS with other false religions built upon one single verse, the false RCC was built on this one single verse that was misinterpreted so the rcc coould control the masses as seen throughout history.
 
Moderator Warning:

Religion is a very personal thing. You all can have an intellectual discussion about religious sects, WITHOUT getting personal.

Just as folks can have an intellectual discussions about how, and what politics, church leaders decided, at the initial founding roots of the church.

Please continue.

The Messed Up Truth Of The Council Of Nicaea​





The Dead Sea Scrolls [Complete English Translation].pdf (PDFy mirror)​

 
Is Peter the first Pope? When you read Peter's statement in context, one understands immediately what he is talking about, it is that simple. Roman Catholicism says the rock is Peter, Peter says otherwise. Peter, the very one to whom Jesus is speaking to states in 1 Pt.2:4 “Coming to Him (Christ) as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men. It was Christ we come to. Peter here tells every Christian that he is a small stone along with the rest of us vs.5,” built up into a spiritual “temple,” and Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone (the rock). Peter quotes Isaiah, the prophet, who was speaking of prophetically of the coming of The Messiah. This question must be explained by the Catholic. God Himself and has built the Church. If Peter really was the “cornerstone “Why didn't Isaiah say “Behold I lay in Rome a chief cornerstone?” Because it was laid in Zion not Rome.This crucial to understand where the authority lies. And what kind of a stone is he that wavers in his faith. So the rock couldn't possibly be Peter who is just man. Imagine no ekkleesia (Church) without Peter? Since when is God so dependent on one man to do his work? God has not entrusted any human being to build the ekkleesia or have it built on them. He built it upon HIMSELF, by Jesus Christ.

It is the stone that the builders rejected that became the chief cornerstone, the rock that the church is built on. As Peter says God laid in Zion a stone a chief cornerstone which is the foundation stone to the building, which is the Church. A cornerstone is a huge rock, this is the rock that Christ was speaking of. And it must be something that is eternal, a living stone to last through all the ages.

In 1 Pt.2:7, “Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious stone (Peter is not saying I am precious) and he who believes on him will by no means be put to shame.” Is this Peter we are to believe on? Peter goes on saying in v.7 “Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, “The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone, “and “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.” They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.” Who was rejected? Christ. What is the church built on? Christ. Who is one to believe on? Christ. Who do you trust and believe in? Christ. If one trusts in Peter they will be ashamed. Certainly not Peter nor any other apostle called themselves the foundation or had one to believe on them. we are told to believe on the stone, speaking of Christ. 1 Pt.5:4 Peter goes on to identify the chief shepherd as Jesus. Not himself!

Therefore to you who believe he is precious but to those who are disobedient (disbelieve) the stone that the builders rejected became the chief cornerstone. Who was rejected? Christ. what is the church built on? Christ. Who is one to believe on? Christ. who do you trust? Christ. If one trusts in Peter they will be ashamed, he is the wrong foundation. Ps.18:31 “For who is our God except the Lord and who is our rock except our God. who is the church built on? In 2 Cor.3:10 Paul claims to be a master builder and says there is no other foundation that can be laid, which is Jesus Christ. “According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

Eph.2:20, “Having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” The cornerstone was a massive rock cut as the foundation stone which is put in the corner and out of both sides would come the apostles and prophets.

The Builder and Maker of the church is Christ himself; as he states, “I will build it”. The Church is a living temple which is a dwelling place for the holy Spirit and we are temple made up of living stones which He is building together. Peter writing to the Christians dispersed through the Roman provinces in Asia (1 Peter 1:1) in 1 Pt.2:5 You also as living stones are being built up to a spiritual house.” Heb.3 “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.” V.6 “But Christ as a Son over his own house whose house we are.” Christ is the head of the house which is the body of Christ. He is the architect (builder) of all things even the church is built by and on Christ. Christ is the head of the body, together and as individuals we are directed by Him, not by a priesthood or a Pope.


The Popes say that Peter was the rock, but Peter himself said Jesus is the rock (1 Peter 2:4-8). He even preaches this to all of Israel in Acts 4:11speaking of Christ, “This is the stone the builders rejected (Christ) which has become the chief cornerstone”, he then proclaims there is salvation in no other “for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” That rock is our salvation, this is what the Church is built upon. Salvation is found in the person of Christ not in the church or in sacraments. It is found in the rock just as Jesus said, he would build his church on this confession. The rock was the confession of Peter’s revelation, this is the very reason why he is commended. This is something the Father testified all through Christ’s ministry. Sometimes it was audible as at the baptism and the transfiguration when the Father spoke “this is my beloved son” and accompanied it by supernatural signs. It is this confession of Jesus being the Son of God that the universal church is built on.

Luke 20:17-19: “Then He looked at them and said, “What then is this that is written: 'The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone?” Whoever falls on that stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.” And the chief priests and the scribes that very hour sought to lay hands on Him, but they feared the people-- for they knew that He had spoken this parable against them.” Have you fallen on this stone who is Christ? Which stone are you on? For if you have not fallen on the stone, it will one fall on you and crush you.

Was (only) Peter given the keys of the kingdom (Mt.16:19)

“I will give you the keys of heaven,” if this means it is to Peter only, than there can be no Roman Catholic justification for it being given to anyone afterwards. Yet there is no scripture that entertains this idea of apostolic succession.

“I will give you the keys” at the time was future tense, meaning after Jesus' resurrection; when He ascended on high, He gave those gifts (Eph. 4:8) empowered the apostles with the Holy Spirit so they may employ their authority under Christ. Peter had the pronouncement of the keys given to him first but not him alone. This power of authority was actually given, not to Peter only, but to all the apostles. This is a delegated spiritual power; it is a power pertaining to all the things of the kingdom of heaven. The figure of the keys is of a building with keys that are used to open from the outside. Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, meaning that he will make him the instrument of opening the door of faith to the world, first to preach the gospel to the Jews and then the Gentiles. In this way what is bound on earth is bound in heaven.


It is Christ the Risen Lord who has “the keys of death and of Hades” (Rev. 1:18; 3:7) He has “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” which he gives to Peter (and the others) as a “gatekeeper.”

The master of the house gives the keys to the steward, but it was not to only one, but many. This promise was renewed and given to all the disciples Mt.18:18. Put in context is about church discipline. Notice it says “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven...Again I say to you that if TWO of you agree on earth concerning anything they ask...” The keys included doctrine, called the key of knowledge. As the apostles were instructed by Christ they taught others, and by the teaching of the Holy Spirit. “Since the power of binding and loosing, which is here conferred upon Peter, is ascribed (Matt 18:18) to the apostles generally, the power conferred upon the former is set in its proper light, and shown to be of necessity a power of a collegiate nature, so that Peter is not to be regarded as exclusively endowed with it, either in whole or in part, but is simply to be looked upon as first among his equals” (Meyer on Matt 16:19; 18:18).
As Scripture teaches Peter is not exclusively gifted with the keys but only first among his equals. For it says that two or more must agree not just one as in speaking Ex Cathedra. Whatever this meant, it was extended to all the apostles and to the Church to practice today. As Christ's followers through all ages have the power to admit into the church under his command Go, disciple all nations, baptizing them and teaching those who profess faith in Christ.

Peter had the privilege to use the keys by presenting the gospel in Acts 2 to the Jews first, in Acts 8 to the Samaritans and in Acts 10 to the Gentiles. But he was called to be the apostles to the Jews which certainly would disqualify him from being in Rome ruling over gentiles. (That was Paul's ministry. If he did visit Rome it was not to stay or rule there.)

To “bind and loose” in the vernacular of the Jews at that time, signified to prohibit and permit; to teach or declare a thing to be unlawful was to bind; to be lawful, was to loose. As the leadership was ripped from non believing Israel and given to the apostles; some things forbidden by the law of Moses were now to be allowed, as the eating of such and such meats; some things allowed there were now to be forbidden. Acts 10:13-16And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.” By God loosening the restrictions permitting non kosher foods to be eaten Peter understands the vision through the gentiles. Peter used these keys in a legislative sense of ‘loosing” as Peter saw God’s spirit moving to declare the gentiles clean. Just as it was revealed to him in previously by a vision in Acts 10:9-48. The Lord was telling him to eat what was on the sheet. Peter refused because it was forbidden to eat unclean animals under the mosaic Law. After three times of the Lord saying to eat because they are now clean, Peter then begins to contemplate what the vision meant. This had a two-fold meaning that the foods once forbidden were now permitted from this Peter concludes as he sees that the Lord had cleansed all by his blood so to the gentiles can be saved.

Peter also used the keys in judicially “binding” punishing Annanias and Sapphirra for their lying to the Holy Spirit.

“Now there arose a dispute among them, which of them was reputed to be the greatest. But he said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they who exercise authority over them are called Benefactors. But not so with you. On the contrary, let him who is greatest among you become as the youngest, and him who is chief as the servant.'“ (Luke 22:24-26).

The Pope has people bow down to him and kiss his ring (this was often a sign of worship). When men bowed to Peter in Acts 10:25-26 he refused them telling them to “stand up, I myself am a man” If Peter is to be the example should not the Pope follow it?

The fact that the apostles had an argument among themselves shows they certainly did not understand that Peter was to be Pope. Jesus had the chance to correct them if this were so. Also, the occasion of the argument was the night of the betrayal- the last night of the Lord's earthly ministry- and yet the apostles still did not understand that Christ had given Peter a position of primacy. Even after the so called “ exaltation of Peter” in Mt.16:16 where Jesus said He would give Peter the keys of the kingdom, less than two chapters later we see that He gave it to them all (Mt.18). Why do this if it is exclusive? Because ALL the apostles were to be the foundation not only one of them. The Lord settled the argument, not by stating that He had already made Peter head, but by declaring that the Gentiles have their head rulers, “But not so with you.” Jesus very plainly taught that no one would occupy any such place as a ruler (or Pope) exercising authority over the whole church. Peter said they will all abandon you but not I. What did Jesus say? Before the night is over ( the rooster crows) you will deny me 3 times. Not a good sign for one who would lead the Church.

1 Peter 1:1 Peter's letters employ his apostleship in the introduction. Because he is addressing churches which he had no immediate connection with him, but with Paul. Paul later states: “For I consider that I am not at all INFERIOR to the most eminent apostles” (2 Cor. 11:5). Notice that Paul uses the plural form “APOSTLES,” not “A or THE apostle.”

The Bible makes it clear the foundation of the church is not on one apostle but all of them.
Eph 2:20 “ having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone.” It is not built on Peter as Roman Catholicism claims. In heaven as on earth god recognizes them equally. “Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” There is not Peter with the eleven, he is included with the twelve.( Rev 21:14)

Eph 4:11-12 “And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” There is no pope mentioned for the church's instruction. Peter states in 2 Pet 3:2 “that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior”

Without the Papacy and the succession of Peter there is no Roman Catholicism. Their church stands or falls upon this teaching. The true Church stands and falls by its teachings and practices of Christ from the word of God in the Bible alone. Jesus said “if you continue in my word you are certainly my disciples.” When Jesus gave this power to the apostles, He meant that whatsoever they forbid or permit in the church would have authority in conducting His teachings. This same authority is written of in the Scripture and used for governing the church today.

AS with other false religions built upon one single verse, the false RCC was built on this one single verse that was misinterpreted so the rcc coould control the masses as seen throughout history.
You aren't St Augustine though you think you are
1705059999337.png
 
Peter and Paul between them moulded a Cult Religion which was picked up by Deep State as a Control asset but is now in the midst of dumping it .
You no longer need old fashioned Cult Conditioning techniques at the dawn of AI.
AI rang the death knell for Cult Christianity . As it will do for Judaism and Islam , though the latter might need more time to vanquish
 
Is Peter the first Pope? When you read Peter's statement in context, one understands immediately what he is talking about, it is that simple. Roman Catholicism says the rock is Peter, Peter says otherwise. Peter, the very one to whom Jesus is speaking to states in 1 Pt.2:4 “Coming to Him (Christ) as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men. It was Christ we come to. Peter here tells every Christian that he is a small stone along with the rest of us vs.5,” built up into a spiritual “temple,” and Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone (the rock). Peter quotes Isaiah, the prophet, who was speaking of prophetically of the coming of The Messiah. This question must be explained by the Catholic. God Himself and has built the Church. If Peter really was the “cornerstone “Why didn't Isaiah say “Behold I lay in Rome a chief cornerstone?” Because it was laid in Zion not Rome.This crucial to understand where the authority lies. And what kind of a stone is he that wavers in his faith. So the rock couldn't possibly be Peter who is just man. Imagine no ekkleesia (Church) without Peter? Since when is God so dependent on one man to do his work? God has not entrusted any human being to build the ekkleesia or have it built on them. He built it upon HIMSELF, by Jesus Christ.

It is the stone that the builders rejected that became the chief cornerstone, the rock that the church is built on. As Peter says God laid in Zion a stone a chief cornerstone which is the foundation stone to the building, which is the Church. A cornerstone is a huge rock, this is the rock that Christ was speaking of. And it must be something that is eternal, a living stone to last through all the ages.

In 1 Pt.2:7, “Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious stone (Peter is not saying I am precious) and he who believes on him will by no means be put to shame.” Is this Peter we are to believe on? Peter goes on saying in v.7 “Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, “The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone, “and “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.” They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.” Who was rejected? Christ. What is the church built on? Christ. Who is one to believe on? Christ. Who do you trust and believe in? Christ. If one trusts in Peter they will be ashamed. Certainly not Peter nor any other apostle called themselves the foundation or had one to believe on them. we are told to believe on the stone, speaking of Christ. 1 Pt.5:4 Peter goes on to identify the chief shepherd as Jesus. Not himself!

Therefore to you who believe he is precious but to those who are disobedient (disbelieve) the stone that the builders rejected became the chief cornerstone. Who was rejected? Christ. what is the church built on? Christ. Who is one to believe on? Christ. who do you trust? Christ. If one trusts in Peter they will be ashamed, he is the wrong foundation. Ps.18:31 “For who is our God except the Lord and who is our rock except our God. who is the church built on? In 2 Cor.3:10 Paul claims to be a master builder and says there is no other foundation that can be laid, which is Jesus Christ. “According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

Eph.2:20, “Having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” The cornerstone was a massive rock cut as the foundation stone which is put in the corner and out of both sides would come the apostles and prophets.

The Builder and Maker of the church is Christ himself; as he states, “I will build it”. The Church is a living temple which is a dwelling place for the holy Spirit and we are temple made up of living stones which He is building together. Peter writing to the Christians dispersed through the Roman provinces in Asia (1 Peter 1:1) in 1 Pt.2:5 You also as living stones are being built up to a spiritual house.” Heb.3 “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.” V.6 “But Christ as a Son over his own house whose house we are.” Christ is the head of the house which is the body of Christ. He is the architect (builder) of all things even the church is built by and on Christ. Christ is the head of the body, together and as individuals we are directed by Him, not by a priesthood or a Pope.


The Popes say that Peter was the rock, but Peter himself said Jesus is the rock (1 Peter 2:4-8). He even preaches this to all of Israel in Acts 4:11speaking of Christ, “This is the stone the builders rejected (Christ) which has become the chief cornerstone”, he then proclaims there is salvation in no other “for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” That rock is our salvation, this is what the Church is built upon. Salvation is found in the person of Christ not in the church or in sacraments. It is found in the rock just as Jesus said, he would build his church on this confession. The rock was the confession of Peter’s revelation, this is the very reason why he is commended. This is something the Father testified all through Christ’s ministry. Sometimes it was audible as at the baptism and the transfiguration when the Father spoke “this is my beloved son” and accompanied it by supernatural signs. It is this confession of Jesus being the Son of God that the universal church is built on.

Luke 20:17-19: “Then He looked at them and said, “What then is this that is written: 'The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone?” Whoever falls on that stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.” And the chief priests and the scribes that very hour sought to lay hands on Him, but they feared the people-- for they knew that He had spoken this parable against them.” Have you fallen on this stone who is Christ? Which stone are you on? For if you have not fallen on the stone, it will one fall on you and crush you.

Was (only) Peter given the keys of the kingdom (Mt.16:19)

“I will give you the keys of heaven,” if this means it is to Peter only, than there can be no Roman Catholic justification for it being given to anyone afterwards. Yet there is no scripture that entertains this idea of apostolic succession.

“I will give you the keys” at the time was future tense, meaning after Jesus' resurrection; when He ascended on high, He gave those gifts (Eph. 4:8) empowered the apostles with the Holy Spirit so they may employ their authority under Christ. Peter had the pronouncement of the keys given to him first but not him alone. This power of authority was actually given, not to Peter only, but to all the apostles. This is a delegated spiritual power; it is a power pertaining to all the things of the kingdom of heaven. The figure of the keys is of a building with keys that are used to open from the outside. Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, meaning that he will make him the instrument of opening the door of faith to the world, first to preach the gospel to the Jews and then the Gentiles. In this way what is bound on earth is bound in heaven.


It is Christ the Risen Lord who has “the keys of death and of Hades” (Rev. 1:18; 3:7) He has “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” which he gives to Peter (and the others) as a “gatekeeper.”

The master of the house gives the keys to the steward, but it was not to only one, but many. This promise was renewed and given to all the disciples Mt.18:18. Put in context is about church discipline. Notice it says “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven...Again I say to you that if TWO of you agree on earth concerning anything they ask...” The keys included doctrine, called the key of knowledge. As the apostles were instructed by Christ they taught others, and by the teaching of the Holy Spirit. “Since the power of binding and loosing, which is here conferred upon Peter, is ascribed (Matt 18:18) to the apostles generally, the power conferred upon the former is set in its proper light, and shown to be of necessity a power of a collegiate nature, so that Peter is not to be regarded as exclusively endowed with it, either in whole or in part, but is simply to be looked upon as first among his equals” (Meyer on Matt 16:19; 18:18).
As Scripture teaches Peter is not exclusively gifted with the keys but only first among his equals. For it says that two or more must agree not just one as in speaking Ex Cathedra. Whatever this meant, it was extended to all the apostles and to the Church to practice today. As Christ's followers through all ages have the power to admit into the church under his command Go, disciple all nations, baptizing them and teaching those who profess faith in Christ.

Peter had the privilege to use the keys by presenting the gospel in Acts 2 to the Jews first, in Acts 8 to the Samaritans and in Acts 10 to the Gentiles. But he was called to be the apostles to the Jews which certainly would disqualify him from being in Rome ruling over gentiles. (That was Paul's ministry. If he did visit Rome it was not to stay or rule there.)

To “bind and loose” in the vernacular of the Jews at that time, signified to prohibit and permit; to teach or declare a thing to be unlawful was to bind; to be lawful, was to loose. As the leadership was ripped from non believing Israel and given to the apostles; some things forbidden by the law of Moses were now to be allowed, as the eating of such and such meats; some things allowed there were now to be forbidden. Acts 10:13-16And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.” By God loosening the restrictions permitting non kosher foods to be eaten Peter understands the vision through the gentiles. Peter used these keys in a legislative sense of ‘loosing” as Peter saw God’s spirit moving to declare the gentiles clean. Just as it was revealed to him in previously by a vision in Acts 10:9-48. The Lord was telling him to eat what was on the sheet. Peter refused because it was forbidden to eat unclean animals under the mosaic Law. After three times of the Lord saying to eat because they are now clean, Peter then begins to contemplate what the vision meant. This had a two-fold meaning that the foods once forbidden were now permitted from this Peter concludes as he sees that the Lord had cleansed all by his blood so to the gentiles can be saved.

Peter also used the keys in judicially “binding” punishing Annanias and Sapphirra for their lying to the Holy Spirit.

“Now there arose a dispute among them, which of them was reputed to be the greatest. But he said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they who exercise authority over them are called Benefactors. But not so with you. On the contrary, let him who is greatest among you become as the youngest, and him who is chief as the servant.'“ (Luke 22:24-26).

The Pope has people bow down to him and kiss his ring (this was often a sign of worship). When men bowed to Peter in Acts 10:25-26 he refused them telling them to “stand up, I myself am a man” If Peter is to be the example should not the Pope follow it?

The fact that the apostles had an argument among themselves shows they certainly did not understand that Peter was to be Pope. Jesus had the chance to correct them if this were so. Also, the occasion of the argument was the night of the betrayal- the last night of the Lord's earthly ministry- and yet the apostles still did not understand that Christ had given Peter a position of primacy. Even after the so called “ exaltation of Peter” in Mt.16:16 where Jesus said He would give Peter the keys of the kingdom, less than two chapters later we see that He gave it to them all (Mt.18). Why do this if it is exclusive? Because ALL the apostles were to be the foundation not only one of them. The Lord settled the argument, not by stating that He had already made Peter head, but by declaring that the Gentiles have their head rulers, “But not so with you.” Jesus very plainly taught that no one would occupy any such place as a ruler (or Pope) exercising authority over the whole church. Peter said they will all abandon you but not I. What did Jesus say? Before the night is over ( the rooster crows) you will deny me 3 times. Not a good sign for one who would lead the Church.

1 Peter 1:1 Peter's letters employ his apostleship in the introduction. Because he is addressing churches which he had no immediate connection with him, but with Paul. Paul later states: “For I consider that I am not at all INFERIOR to the most eminent apostles” (2 Cor. 11:5). Notice that Paul uses the plural form “APOSTLES,” not “A or THE apostle.”

The Bible makes it clear the foundation of the church is not on one apostle but all of them.
Eph 2:20 “ having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone.” It is not built on Peter as Roman Catholicism claims. In heaven as on earth god recognizes them equally. “Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” There is not Peter with the eleven, he is included with the twelve.( Rev 21:14)

Eph 4:11-12 “And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” There is no pope mentioned for the church's instruction. Peter states in 2 Pet 3:2 “that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior”

Without the Papacy and the succession of Peter there is no Roman Catholicism. Their church stands or falls upon this teaching. The true Church stands and falls by its teachings and practices of Christ from the word of God in the Bible alone. Jesus said “if you continue in my word you are certainly my disciples.” When Jesus gave this power to the apostles, He meant that whatsoever they forbid or permit in the church would have authority in conducting His teachings. This same authority is written of in the Scripture and used for governing the church today.

AS with other false religions built upon one single verse, the false RCC was built on this one single verse that was misinterpreted so the rcc coould control the masses as seen throughout history.

If you want to question the Catholic Church dogma on Peter as a topic for discussion you should start by posting what the Church teaches from a Catholic source.


In Catholic tradition, the foundation for the office of the pope is indeed found primarily in Matthew 16:13-20. Here Jesus asked the question, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" The apostles responded, "Some say John the Baptizer, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." Our Lord then turned to them and point-blank asked them, "And you, who do you say that I am?"
Peter, still officially known as Simon, replied, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Our Lord recognized that this answer was grace-motivated: "No mere man has revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father."
Because of this response, Our Lord said to Peter first, "You are 'Rock,' and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The name change itself from Simon to Peter indicates the apostle being called to a special role of leadership; recall how Abram's name was changed to Abraham, or Jacob's to Israel, or Saul's to Paul when each of them was called to assume a special role of leadership among God's people.
The word "rock" also has special significance. On one hand, to be called "rock" was a Semitic expression designating the solid foundation upon which a community would be built. For instance, Abraham was considered "rock" because he was the father of the Jewish people (and we, too, refer to him as our father in faith) and the one with whom the covenant was first made.
On the other hand, no one except God was called specifically "rock," nor was it ever used as a proper name except for God. To give the name "rock" to Peter indicates that Our Lord entrusted to him a special authority. Some anti-papal parties try to play linguistic games with the original Greek Gospel text where the masculine gender word "petros," meaning a small moveable rock, refers to Peter, while the feminine gender word "petra," meaning a massive immovable rock, refers to the foundation of the Church. However, in the Aramaic language, which is what Jesus spoke and which is believed to be the original language of Matthew's Gospel, the word "kepha," meaning rock, would be used in both places without gender distinction of difference in meaning. The gender problem arises when translating from Aramaic to Greek and using the proper form to modify the masculine word "Peter" or feminine word "Church."
The "Gates of Hell" is also an interesting semitic expression. The heaviest forces were positioned at the gates; so this expression captures the great war-making power of a nation. Here this expression refers to the powers opposed to what Our Lord is establishing — the Church. (A similar expression is used in reference to Our Lord in Acts 2:24: "God freed Him from the bitter pangs of hell, however, and raised Him up again, for it was impossible that death should keep its hold on Him.") Jesus associated Peter and his office so closely with Himself that he became a visible force for protecting the Church and keeping back the power of hell.
Second, Jesus says, "I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." In the Old Testament, the "number two" person in the kingdom literally held the keys. In Isaiah 22:19-22 we find a reference to Eliakim, the master of the palace of King Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18: 17ff) and keeper of the keys. As a sign of his position, the one who held the keys represented the king, acted with his authority, and had to act in accord with the king's mind. Therefore, Peter and each of his successors represent Our Lord on this earth as His vicar and lead the faithful flock of the Church to the Kingdom of Heaven.
Finally, Jesus says, "Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This is rabbinic terminology. A rabbi could bind, declaring an act forbidden or excommunicating a person for serious sin; or, a rabbi could loose, declaring an act permissible or reconciling an excommunicated sinner to the community. Here Christ entrusted a special authority to Peter to preserve, interpret and teach His truth. In all, this understanding of Matthew 16 was unchallenged until the Protestant leaders wanted to legitimize their rejection of papal authority and the office of the pope. Even the Orthodox Churches recognize the pope as the successor of Peter; however, they do not honor his binding jurisdiction over the whole Church but only grant him a position of "first among equals."
Peter's role in the New Testament further substantiates the Catholic belief concerning the papacy and what Jesus said in Matthew 16. Peter held a preeminent position among the apostles. He is always listed first (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13) and is sometimes the only one mentioned (Lk 9:32). He speaks for the apostles (Mt 18:21; Mk 8:28; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69). When Our Lord selects a group of three for some special event, such as the Transfiguration, Peter is in the first position. Our Lord chose Peter's boat to teach. At Pentecost, Peter preached to the crowds and told of the mission of the Church (Acts 2:14-40). He performed the first miraculous healing (Acts 3:6-7). Peter also received the revelation that Gentiles were to be baptized (Acts 10: 9-48) and sided with Paul against the need for circumcision (Acts 15). At the end of his life, Peter was crucified, but in his humility asked to be crucified upside down.
As Catholics, we believe that the authority given to Peter did not end with his life, but was handed on to his successors. The earliest writings attest to this belief. St. Irenaeus (d. 202) in his "Adversus haereses" describes how the Church at Rome was founded by Sts. Peter and Paul and traced the handing on of the office of Peter through Linus, Cletus (also called Anacletus) and so on through the twelve successors to the pope of his own day, Pope Eleutherius. Tertullian (d. 250) in "De praescriptione haereticorum" asserted the same point, as did Origen (D. 254) in his "Commentaries on John," St. Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258) in his "The Unity of the Catholic Church," and many others.
Granted, the expression of papal authority becomes magnified after the legalization of Christianity, and especially after the fall of the Roman Empire and the ensuing political chaos. Nevertheless, our Church boasts of an unbroken line of legitimate successors of Peter who stand in the stead of Christ. We must always remember that one of the official titles of the pope, first taken by Pope Gregory I, the Great (d. 604), is "Servant of the Servants of God." As we think of this answer, may we be mindful of our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, and pray for his intentions.
 
You aren't St Augustine though you think you are
View attachment 886810
When it comes to my faith, all I know is that there is a Creator, I'll call Him "God" with all the proper respects so that I can communicate with other meat sacks regarding Him. I know I have a soul and I'm pretty sure everyone and nearly everything animated with the life He gives has some element of a "soul". It's how we interact with this spiritual part of reality that makes a difference therefore I try to be "Good" as I understand that to be, and oppose things I perceive to be "evil". I'm neutral on law, because evil people regularly create laws and even follow it for their own purposes.
 
Purgatory is just one excellent Deep State control mechanism that worked spendidly against a certain type for a long time .
Still does, but, with the predictable decline of Cult Christianity, it is now better seen as an absurd construct which uncluttered minds soon work out .
 
Is Peter the first Pope? When you read Peter's statement in context, one understands immediately what he is talking about, it is that simple. Roman Catholicism says the rock is Peter, Peter says otherwise. Peter, the very one to whom Jesus is speaking to states in 1 Pt.2:4 “Coming to Him (Christ) as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men. It was Christ we come to. Peter here tells every Christian that he is a small stone along with the rest of us vs.5,” built up into a spiritual “temple,” and Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone (the rock). Peter quotes Isaiah, the prophet, who was speaking of prophetically of the coming of The Messiah. This question must be explained by the Catholic. God Himself and has built the Church. If Peter really was the “cornerstone “Why didn't Isaiah say “Behold I lay in Rome a chief cornerstone?” Because it was laid in Zion not Rome.This crucial to understand where the authority lies. And what kind of a stone is he that wavers in his faith. So the rock couldn't possibly be Peter who is just man. Imagine no ekkleesia (Church) without Peter? Since when is God so dependent on one man to do his work? God has not entrusted any human being to build the ekkleesia or have it built on them. He built it upon HIMSELF, by Jesus Christ.

It is the stone that the builders rejected that became the chief cornerstone, the rock that the church is built on. As Peter says God laid in Zion a stone a chief cornerstone which is the foundation stone to the building, which is the Church. A cornerstone is a huge rock, this is the rock that Christ was speaking of. And it must be something that is eternal, a living stone to last through all the ages.

In 1 Pt.2:7, “Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious stone (Peter is not saying I am precious) and he who believes on him will by no means be put to shame.” Is this Peter we are to believe on? Peter goes on saying in v.7 “Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, “The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone, “and “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.” They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.” Who was rejected? Christ. What is the church built on? Christ. Who is one to believe on? Christ. Who do you trust and believe in? Christ. If one trusts in Peter they will be ashamed. Certainly not Peter nor any other apostle called themselves the foundation or had one to believe on them. we are told to believe on the stone, speaking of Christ. 1 Pt.5:4 Peter goes on to identify the chief shepherd as Jesus. Not himself!

Therefore to you who believe he is precious but to those who are disobedient (disbelieve) the stone that the builders rejected became the chief cornerstone. Who was rejected? Christ. what is the church built on? Christ. Who is one to believe on? Christ. who do you trust? Christ. If one trusts in Peter they will be ashamed, he is the wrong foundation. Ps.18:31 “For who is our God except the Lord and who is our rock except our God. who is the church built on? In 2 Cor.3:10 Paul claims to be a master builder and says there is no other foundation that can be laid, which is Jesus Christ. “According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

Eph.2:20, “Having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” The cornerstone was a massive rock cut as the foundation stone which is put in the corner and out of both sides would come the apostles and prophets.

The Builder and Maker of the church is Christ himself; as he states, “I will build it”. The Church is a living temple which is a dwelling place for the holy Spirit and we are temple made up of living stones which He is building together. Peter writing to the Christians dispersed through the Roman provinces in Asia (1 Peter 1:1) in 1 Pt.2:5 You also as living stones are being built up to a spiritual house.” Heb.3 “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.” V.6 “But Christ as a Son over his own house whose house we are.” Christ is the head of the house which is the body of Christ. He is the architect (builder) of all things even the church is built by and on Christ. Christ is the head of the body, together and as individuals we are directed by Him, not by a priesthood or a Pope.


The Popes say that Peter was the rock, but Peter himself said Jesus is the rock (1 Peter 2:4-8). He even preaches this to all of Israel in Acts 4:11speaking of Christ, “This is the stone the builders rejected (Christ) which has become the chief cornerstone”, he then proclaims there is salvation in no other “for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” That rock is our salvation, this is what the Church is built upon. Salvation is found in the person of Christ not in the church or in sacraments. It is found in the rock just as Jesus said, he would build his church on this confession. The rock was the confession of Peter’s revelation, this is the very reason why he is commended. This is something the Father testified all through Christ’s ministry. Sometimes it was audible as at the baptism and the transfiguration when the Father spoke “this is my beloved son” and accompanied it by supernatural signs. It is this confession of Jesus being the Son of God that the universal church is built on.

Luke 20:17-19: “Then He looked at them and said, “What then is this that is written: 'The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone?” Whoever falls on that stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.” And the chief priests and the scribes that very hour sought to lay hands on Him, but they feared the people-- for they knew that He had spoken this parable against them.” Have you fallen on this stone who is Christ? Which stone are you on? For if you have not fallen on the stone, it will one fall on you and crush you.

Was (only) Peter given the keys of the kingdom (Mt.16:19)

“I will give you the keys of heaven,” if this means it is to Peter only, than there can be no Roman Catholic justification for it being given to anyone afterwards. Yet there is no scripture that entertains this idea of apostolic succession.

“I will give you the keys” at the time was future tense, meaning after Jesus' resurrection; when He ascended on high, He gave those gifts (Eph. 4:8) empowered the apostles with the Holy Spirit so they may employ their authority under Christ. Peter had the pronouncement of the keys given to him first but not him alone. This power of authority was actually given, not to Peter only, but to all the apostles. This is a delegated spiritual power; it is a power pertaining to all the things of the kingdom of heaven. The figure of the keys is of a building with keys that are used to open from the outside. Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, meaning that he will make him the instrument of opening the door of faith to the world, first to preach the gospel to the Jews and then the Gentiles. In this way what is bound on earth is bound in heaven.


It is Christ the Risen Lord who has “the keys of death and of Hades” (Rev. 1:18; 3:7) He has “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” which he gives to Peter (and the others) as a “gatekeeper.”

The master of the house gives the keys to the steward, but it was not to only one, but many. This promise was renewed and given to all the disciples Mt.18:18. Put in context is about church discipline. Notice it says “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven...Again I say to you that if TWO of you agree on earth concerning anything they ask...” The keys included doctrine, called the key of knowledge. As the apostles were instructed by Christ they taught others, and by the teaching of the Holy Spirit. “Since the power of binding and loosing, which is here conferred upon Peter, is ascribed (Matt 18:18) to the apostles generally, the power conferred upon the former is set in its proper light, and shown to be of necessity a power of a collegiate nature, so that Peter is not to be regarded as exclusively endowed with it, either in whole or in part, but is simply to be looked upon as first among his equals” (Meyer on Matt 16:19; 18:18).
As Scripture teaches Peter is not exclusively gifted with the keys but only first among his equals. For it says that two or more must agree not just one as in speaking Ex Cathedra. Whatever this meant, it was extended to all the apostles and to the Church to practice today. As Christ's followers through all ages have the power to admit into the church under his command Go, disciple all nations, baptizing them and teaching those who profess faith in Christ.

Peter had the privilege to use the keys by presenting the gospel in Acts 2 to the Jews first, in Acts 8 to the Samaritans and in Acts 10 to the Gentiles. But he was called to be the apostles to the Jews which certainly would disqualify him from being in Rome ruling over gentiles. (That was Paul's ministry. If he did visit Rome it was not to stay or rule there.)

To “bind and loose” in the vernacular of the Jews at that time, signified to prohibit and permit; to teach or declare a thing to be unlawful was to bind; to be lawful, was to loose. As the leadership was ripped from non believing Israel and given to the apostles; some things forbidden by the law of Moses were now to be allowed, as the eating of such and such meats; some things allowed there were now to be forbidden. Acts 10:13-16And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.” By God loosening the restrictions permitting non kosher foods to be eaten Peter understands the vision through the gentiles. Peter used these keys in a legislative sense of ‘loosing” as Peter saw God’s spirit moving to declare the gentiles clean. Just as it was revealed to him in previously by a vision in Acts 10:9-48. The Lord was telling him to eat what was on the sheet. Peter refused because it was forbidden to eat unclean animals under the mosaic Law. After three times of the Lord saying to eat because they are now clean, Peter then begins to contemplate what the vision meant. This had a two-fold meaning that the foods once forbidden were now permitted from this Peter concludes as he sees that the Lord had cleansed all by his blood so to the gentiles can be saved.

Peter also used the keys in judicially “binding” punishing Annanias and Sapphirra for their lying to the Holy Spirit.

“Now there arose a dispute among them, which of them was reputed to be the greatest. But he said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they who exercise authority over them are called Benefactors. But not so with you. On the contrary, let him who is greatest among you become as the youngest, and him who is chief as the servant.'“ (Luke 22:24-26).

The Pope has people bow down to him and kiss his ring (this was often a sign of worship). When men bowed to Peter in Acts 10:25-26 he refused them telling them to “stand up, I myself am a man” If Peter is to be the example should not the Pope follow it?

The fact that the apostles had an argument among themselves shows they certainly did not understand that Peter was to be Pope. Jesus had the chance to correct them if this were so. Also, the occasion of the argument was the night of the betrayal- the last night of the Lord's earthly ministry- and yet the apostles still did not understand that Christ had given Peter a position of primacy. Even after the so called “ exaltation of Peter” in Mt.16:16 where Jesus said He would give Peter the keys of the kingdom, less than two chapters later we see that He gave it to them all (Mt.18). Why do this if it is exclusive? Because ALL the apostles were to be the foundation not only one of them. The Lord settled the argument, not by stating that He had already made Peter head, but by declaring that the Gentiles have their head rulers, “But not so with you.” Jesus very plainly taught that no one would occupy any such place as a ruler (or Pope) exercising authority over the whole church. Peter said they will all abandon you but not I. What did Jesus say? Before the night is over ( the rooster crows) you will deny me 3 times. Not a good sign for one who would lead the Church.

1 Peter 1:1 Peter's letters employ his apostleship in the introduction. Because he is addressing churches which he had no immediate connection with him, but with Paul. Paul later states: “For I consider that I am not at all INFERIOR to the most eminent apostles” (2 Cor. 11:5). Notice that Paul uses the plural form “APOSTLES,” not “A or THE apostle.”

The Bible makes it clear the foundation of the church is not on one apostle but all of them.
Eph 2:20 “ having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone.” It is not built on Peter as Roman Catholicism claims. In heaven as on earth god recognizes them equally. “Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” There is not Peter with the eleven, he is included with the twelve.( Rev 21:14)

Eph 4:11-12 “And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” There is no pope mentioned for the church's instruction. Peter states in 2 Pet 3:2 “that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior”

Without the Papacy and the succession of Peter there is no Roman Catholicism. Their church stands or falls upon this teaching. The true Church stands and falls by its teachings and practices of Christ from the word of God in the Bible alone. Jesus said “if you continue in my word you are certainly my disciples.” When Jesus gave this power to the apostles, He meant that whatsoever they forbid or permit in the church would have authority in conducting His teachings. This same authority is written of in the Scripture and used for governing the church today.

AS with other false religions built upon one single verse, the false RCC was built on this one single verse that was misinterpreted so the rcc coould control the masses as seen throughout history.

Isaiah is writing about Israel not Jesus. What verse are you referring to?
 
Is Peter the first Pope? When you read Peter's statement in context, one understands immediately what he is talking about, it is that simple. Roman Catholicism says the rock is Peter, Peter says otherwise. Peter, the very one to whom Jesus is speaking to states in 1 Pt.2:4 “Coming to Him (Christ) as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men. It was Christ we come to. Peter here tells every Christian that he is a small stone along with the rest of us vs.5,” built up into a spiritual “temple,” and Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone (the rock). Peter quotes Isaiah, the prophet, who was speaking of prophetically of the coming of The Messiah. This question must be explained by the Catholic. God Himself and has built the Church. If Peter really was the “cornerstone “Why didn't Isaiah say “Behold I lay in Rome a chief cornerstone?” Because it was laid in Zion not Rome.This crucial to understand where the authority lies. And what kind of a stone is he that wavers in his faith. So the rock couldn't possibly be Peter who is just man. Imagine no ekkleesia (Church) without Peter? Since when is God so dependent on one man to do his work? God has not entrusted any human being to build the ekkleesia or have it built on them. He built it upon HIMSELF, by Jesus Christ.

It is the stone that the builders rejected that became the chief cornerstone, the rock that the church is built on. As Peter says God laid in Zion a stone a chief cornerstone which is the foundation stone to the building, which is the Church. A cornerstone is a huge rock, this is the rock that Christ was speaking of. And it must be something that is eternal, a living stone to last through all the ages.

In 1 Pt.2:7, “Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious stone (Peter is not saying I am precious) and he who believes on him will by no means be put to shame.” Is this Peter we are to believe on? Peter goes on saying in v.7 “Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, “The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone, “and “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.” They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.” Who was rejected? Christ. What is the church built on? Christ. Who is one to believe on? Christ. Who do you trust and believe in? Christ. If one trusts in Peter they will be ashamed. Certainly not Peter nor any other apostle called themselves the foundation or had one to believe on them. we are told to believe on the stone, speaking of Christ. 1 Pt.5:4 Peter goes on to identify the chief shepherd as Jesus. Not himself!

Therefore to you who believe he is precious but to those who are disobedient (disbelieve) the stone that the builders rejected became the chief cornerstone. Who was rejected? Christ. what is the church built on? Christ. Who is one to believe on? Christ. who do you trust? Christ. If one trusts in Peter they will be ashamed, he is the wrong foundation. Ps.18:31 “For who is our God except the Lord and who is our rock except our God. who is the church built on? In 2 Cor.3:10 Paul claims to be a master builder and says there is no other foundation that can be laid, which is Jesus Christ. “According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

Eph.2:20, “Having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” The cornerstone was a massive rock cut as the foundation stone which is put in the corner and out of both sides would come the apostles and prophets.

The Builder and Maker of the church is Christ himself; as he states, “I will build it”. The Church is a living temple which is a dwelling place for the holy Spirit and we are temple made up of living stones which He is building together. Peter writing to the Christians dispersed through the Roman provinces in Asia (1 Peter 1:1) in 1 Pt.2:5 You also as living stones are being built up to a spiritual house.” Heb.3 “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God.” V.6 “But Christ as a Son over his own house whose house we are.” Christ is the head of the house which is the body of Christ. He is the architect (builder) of all things even the church is built by and on Christ. Christ is the head of the body, together and as individuals we are directed by Him, not by a priesthood or a Pope.


The Popes say that Peter was the rock, but Peter himself said Jesus is the rock (1 Peter 2:4-8). He even preaches this to all of Israel in Acts 4:11speaking of Christ, “This is the stone the builders rejected (Christ) which has become the chief cornerstone”, he then proclaims there is salvation in no other “for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” That rock is our salvation, this is what the Church is built upon. Salvation is found in the person of Christ not in the church or in sacraments. It is found in the rock just as Jesus said, he would build his church on this confession. The rock was the confession of Peter’s revelation, this is the very reason why he is commended. This is something the Father testified all through Christ’s ministry. Sometimes it was audible as at the baptism and the transfiguration when the Father spoke “this is my beloved son” and accompanied it by supernatural signs. It is this confession of Jesus being the Son of God that the universal church is built on.

Luke 20:17-19: “Then He looked at them and said, “What then is this that is written: 'The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone?” Whoever falls on that stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.” And the chief priests and the scribes that very hour sought to lay hands on Him, but they feared the people-- for they knew that He had spoken this parable against them.” Have you fallen on this stone who is Christ? Which stone are you on? For if you have not fallen on the stone, it will one fall on you and crush you.

Was (only) Peter given the keys of the kingdom (Mt.16:19)

“I will give you the keys of heaven,” if this means it is to Peter only, than there can be no Roman Catholic justification for it being given to anyone afterwards. Yet there is no scripture that entertains this idea of apostolic succession.

“I will give you the keys” at the time was future tense, meaning after Jesus' resurrection; when He ascended on high, He gave those gifts (Eph. 4:8) empowered the apostles with the Holy Spirit so they may employ their authority under Christ. Peter had the pronouncement of the keys given to him first but not him alone. This power of authority was actually given, not to Peter only, but to all the apostles. This is a delegated spiritual power; it is a power pertaining to all the things of the kingdom of heaven. The figure of the keys is of a building with keys that are used to open from the outside. Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, meaning that he will make him the instrument of opening the door of faith to the world, first to preach the gospel to the Jews and then the Gentiles. In this way what is bound on earth is bound in heaven.


It is Christ the Risen Lord who has “the keys of death and of Hades” (Rev. 1:18; 3:7) He has “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” which he gives to Peter (and the others) as a “gatekeeper.”

The master of the house gives the keys to the steward, but it was not to only one, but many. This promise was renewed and given to all the disciples Mt.18:18. Put in context is about church discipline. Notice it says “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven...Again I say to you that if TWO of you agree on earth concerning anything they ask...” The keys included doctrine, called the key of knowledge. As the apostles were instructed by Christ they taught others, and by the teaching of the Holy Spirit. “Since the power of binding and loosing, which is here conferred upon Peter, is ascribed (Matt 18:18) to the apostles generally, the power conferred upon the former is set in its proper light, and shown to be of necessity a power of a collegiate nature, so that Peter is not to be regarded as exclusively endowed with it, either in whole or in part, but is simply to be looked upon as first among his equals” (Meyer on Matt 16:19; 18:18).
As Scripture teaches Peter is not exclusively gifted with the keys but only first among his equals. For it says that two or more must agree not just one as in speaking Ex Cathedra. Whatever this meant, it was extended to all the apostles and to the Church to practice today. As Christ's followers through all ages have the power to admit into the church under his command Go, disciple all nations, baptizing them and teaching those who profess faith in Christ.

Peter had the privilege to use the keys by presenting the gospel in Acts 2 to the Jews first, in Acts 8 to the Samaritans and in Acts 10 to the Gentiles. But he was called to be the apostles to the Jews which certainly would disqualify him from being in Rome ruling over gentiles. (That was Paul's ministry. If he did visit Rome it was not to stay or rule there.)

To “bind and loose” in the vernacular of the Jews at that time, signified to prohibit and permit; to teach or declare a thing to be unlawful was to bind; to be lawful, was to loose. As the leadership was ripped from non believing Israel and given to the apostles; some things forbidden by the law of Moses were now to be allowed, as the eating of such and such meats; some things allowed there were now to be forbidden. Acts 10:13-16And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again.” By God loosening the restrictions permitting non kosher foods to be eaten Peter understands the vision through the gentiles. Peter used these keys in a legislative sense of ‘loosing” as Peter saw God’s spirit moving to declare the gentiles clean. Just as it was revealed to him in previously by a vision in Acts 10:9-48. The Lord was telling him to eat what was on the sheet. Peter refused because it was forbidden to eat unclean animals under the mosaic Law. After three times of the Lord saying to eat because they are now clean, Peter then begins to contemplate what the vision meant. This had a two-fold meaning that the foods once forbidden were now permitted from this Peter concludes as he sees that the Lord had cleansed all by his blood so to the gentiles can be saved.

Peter also used the keys in judicially “binding” punishing Annanias and Sapphirra for their lying to the Holy Spirit.

“Now there arose a dispute among them, which of them was reputed to be the greatest. But he said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they who exercise authority over them are called Benefactors. But not so with you. On the contrary, let him who is greatest among you become as the youngest, and him who is chief as the servant.'“ (Luke 22:24-26).

The Pope has people bow down to him and kiss his ring (this was often a sign of worship). When men bowed to Peter in Acts 10:25-26 he refused them telling them to “stand up, I myself am a man” If Peter is to be the example should not the Pope follow it?

The fact that the apostles had an argument among themselves shows they certainly did not understand that Peter was to be Pope. Jesus had the chance to correct them if this were so. Also, the occasion of the argument was the night of the betrayal- the last night of the Lord's earthly ministry- and yet the apostles still did not understand that Christ had given Peter a position of primacy. Even after the so called “ exaltation of Peter” in Mt.16:16 where Jesus said He would give Peter the keys of the kingdom, less than two chapters later we see that He gave it to them all (Mt.18). Why do this if it is exclusive? Because ALL the apostles were to be the foundation not only one of them. The Lord settled the argument, not by stating that He had already made Peter head, but by declaring that the Gentiles have their head rulers, “But not so with you.” Jesus very plainly taught that no one would occupy any such place as a ruler (or Pope) exercising authority over the whole church. Peter said they will all abandon you but not I. What did Jesus say? Before the night is over ( the rooster crows) you will deny me 3 times. Not a good sign for one who would lead the Church.

1 Peter 1:1 Peter's letters employ his apostleship in the introduction. Because he is addressing churches which he had no immediate connection with him, but with Paul. Paul later states: “For I consider that I am not at all INFERIOR to the most eminent apostles” (2 Cor. 11:5). Notice that Paul uses the plural form “APOSTLES,” not “A or THE apostle.”

The Bible makes it clear the foundation of the church is not on one apostle but all of them.
Eph 2:20 “ having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone.” It is not built on Peter as Roman Catholicism claims. In heaven as on earth god recognizes them equally. “Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” There is not Peter with the eleven, he is included with the twelve.( Rev 21:14)

Eph 4:11-12 “And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” There is no pope mentioned for the church's instruction. Peter states in 2 Pet 3:2 “that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior”

Without the Papacy and the succession of Peter there is no Roman Catholicism. Their church stands or falls upon this teaching. The true Church stands and falls by its teachings and practices of Christ from the word of God in the Bible alone. Jesus said “if you continue in my word you are certainly my disciples.” When Jesus gave this power to the apostles, He meant that whatsoever they forbid or permit in the church would have authority in conducting His teachings. This same authority is written of in the Scripture and used for governing the church today.

AS with other false religions built upon one single verse, the false RCC was built on this one single verse that was misinterpreted so the rcc coould control the masses as seen throughout history.
WOW! That was a lot. Actually, the big rock and small rock have a connection of revelation. The rock is the rock of revelation from Jesus Christ to Peter, the chief Apostle or Prophet. Prophets, in which Apostles are also, are messengers who receive messages from God and have done so since Adam. This is the mistake that Catholics make. The mistake that traditional Christians make is that they believe all communication from God (Christ) ended with the resurrection. Even though, after the resurrection, Christ appeared to the Apostles. He then appeared to John the Revelator and Paul. Paul continued to receive revelation as did the other Apostles like James. They had their battle between faith, grace and works. Actually, they really did agree and understand that faith without works is dead. It's just grace is a gift. Christians mainly see grace is equated to salvation of those who are believers in Christ only. The gift is really everybody, no matter if they are believers or not, will receive the resurrection. The question is what type of resurrected body will a person receive. One of 3 potential glories as stated in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 or one of no glory that will end up in perdition with perdition (Satan).

In any event, so revelation and prophecy continued to about 100 A.D. What happened after that? Why no more prophetic revelations and teaching from Christ? He left His people of Israel for 400 years before Moses opened up the communications with God again. It's been 1900+ years for Christians and Catholics. He must be really mad at you all. Fortunately, there is a Church that Christ is speaking through Prophets and Apostles since 1820. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
 
WOW! That was a lot. Actually, the big rock and small rock have a connection of revelation. The rock is the rock of revelation from Jesus Christ to Peter, the chief Apostle or Prophet. Prophets, in which Apostles are also, are messengers who receive messages from God and have done so since Adam. This is the mistake that Catholics make. The mistake that traditional Christians make is that they believe all communication from God (Christ) ended with the resurrection. Even though, after the resurrection, Christ appeared to the Apostles. He then appeared to John the Revelator and Paul. Paul continued to receive revelation as did the other Apostles like James. They had their battle between faith, grace and works. Actually, they really did agree and understand that faith without works is dead. It's just grace is a gift. Christians mainly see grace is equated to salvation of those who are believers in Christ only. The gift is really everybody, no matter if they are believers or not, will receive the resurrection. The question is what type of resurrected body will a person receive. One of 3 potential glories as stated in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 or one of no glory that will end up in perdition with perdition (Satan).

In any event, so revelation and prophecy continued to about 100 A.D. What happened after that? Why no more prophetic revelations and teaching from Christ? He left His people of Israel for 400 years before Moses opened up the communications with God again. It's been 1900+ years for Christians and Catholics. He must be really mad at you all. Fortunately, there is a Church that Christ is speaking through Prophets and Apostles since 1820. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
repent before its too late. lds church is of satan.
 
WOW! That was a lot. Actually, the big rock and small rock have a connection of revelation. The rock is the rock of revelation from Jesus Christ to Peter, the chief Apostle or Prophet. Prophets, in which Apostles are also, are messengers who receive messages from God and have done so since Adam. This is the mistake that Catholics make. The mistake that traditional Christians make is that they believe all communication from God (Christ) ended with the resurrection. Even though, after the resurrection, Christ appeared to the Apostles. He then appeared to John the Revelator and Paul. Paul continued to receive revelation as did the other Apostles like James. They had their battle between faith, grace and works. Actually, they really did agree and understand that faith without works is dead. It's just grace is a gift. Christians mainly see grace is equated to salvation of those who are believers in Christ only. The gift is really everybody, no matter if they are believers or not, will receive the resurrection. The question is what type of resurrected body will a person receive. One of 3 potential glories as stated in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 or one of no glory that will end up in perdition with perdition (Satan).

In any event, so revelation and prophecy continued to about 100 A.D. What happened after that? Why no more prophetic revelations and teaching from Christ? He left His people of Israel for 400 years before Moses opened up the communications with God again. It's been 1900+ years for Christians and Catholics. He must be really mad at you all. Fortunately, there is a Church that Christ is speaking through Prophets and Apostles since 1820. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
 
WOW! That was a lot. Actually, the big rock and small rock have a connection of revelation. The rock is the rock of revelation from Jesus Christ to Peter, the chief Apostle or Prophet. Prophets, in which Apostles are also, are messengers who receive messages from God and have done so since Adam. This is the mistake that Catholics make. The mistake that traditional Christians make is that they believe all communication from God (Christ) ended with the resurrection. Even though, after the resurrection, Christ appeared to the Apostles. He then appeared to John the Revelator and Paul. Paul continued to receive revelation as did the other Apostles like James. They had their battle between faith, grace and works. Actually, they really did agree and understand that faith without works is dead. It's just grace is a gift. Christians mainly see grace is equated to salvation of those who are believers in Christ only. The gift is really everybody, no matter if they are believers or not, will receive the resurrection. The question is what type of resurrected body will a person receive. One of 3 potential glories as stated in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 or one of no glory that will end up in perdition with perdition (Satan).

In any event, so revelation and prophecy continued to about 100 A.D. What happened after that? Why no more prophetic revelations and teaching from Christ? He left His people of Israel for 400 years before Moses opened up the communications with God again. It's been 1900+ years for Christians and Catholics. He must be really mad at you all. Fortunately, there is a Church that Christ is speaking through Prophets and Apostles since 1820. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Our faith is based on this evidence. So, how could it be wise for you to believe that Joseph Smith received a direct revelation from angels based on a subjective personal experience? Paul even warns specifically in Galatians 1:8-9 that even if “an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you” that he was accursed but seeing an angel is exactly what Joseph Smith claimed.
 
WOW! That was a lot. Actually, the big rock and small rock have a connection of revelation. The rock is the rock of revelation from Jesus Christ to Peter, the chief Apostle or Prophet. Prophets, in which Apostles are also, are messengers who receive messages from God and have done so since Adam. This is the mistake that Catholics make. The mistake that traditional Christians make is that they believe all communication from God (Christ) ended with the resurrection. Even though, after the resurrection, Christ appeared to the Apostles. He then appeared to John the Revelator and Paul. Paul continued to receive revelation as did the other Apostles like James. They had their battle between faith, grace and works. Actually, they really did agree and understand that faith without works is dead. It's just grace is a gift. Christians mainly see grace is equated to salvation of those who are believers in Christ only. The gift is really everybody, no matter if they are believers or not, will receive the resurrection. The question is what type of resurrected body will a person receive. One of 3 potential glories as stated in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 or one of no glory that will end up in perdition with perdition (Satan).

In any event, so revelation and prophecy continued to about 100 A.D. What happened after that? Why no more prophetic revelations and teaching from Christ? He left His people of Israel for 400 years before Moses opened up the communications with God again. It's been 1900+ years for Christians and Catholics. He must be really mad at you all. Fortunately, there is a Church that Christ is speaking through Prophets and Apostles since 1820. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
you act like Joseph Smith had a set story he stuck to from the beginning. He didn't, he was making it up as he went. He was raised and started out Trinitarian, and over time his views evolved. That's why he gave 9 different versions of the "First Vision", that's why the Book of Mormon reads Trinitarian, but his other stuff doesn't. The Mormon church is trying to feed you a narrative that the man was consistent but he was all over the place.
 
WOW! That was a lot. Actually, the big rock and small rock have a connection of revelation. The rock is the rock of revelation from Jesus Christ to Peter, the chief Apostle or Prophet. Prophets, in which Apostles are also, are messengers who receive messages from God and have done so since Adam. This is the mistake that Catholics make. The mistake that traditional Christians make is that they believe all communication from God (Christ) ended with the resurrection. Even though, after the resurrection, Christ appeared to the Apostles. He then appeared to John the Revelator and Paul. Paul continued to receive revelation as did the other Apostles like James. They had their battle between faith, grace and works. Actually, they really did agree and understand that faith without works is dead. It's just grace is a gift. Christians mainly see grace is equated to salvation of those who are believers in Christ only. The gift is really everybody, no matter if they are believers or not, will receive the resurrection. The question is what type of resurrected body will a person receive. One of 3 potential glories as stated in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 or one of no glory that will end up in perdition with perdition (Satan).

In any event, so revelation and prophecy continued to about 100 A.D. What happened after that? Why no more prophetic revelations and teaching from Christ? He left His people of Israel for 400 years before Moses opened up the communications with God again. It's been 1900+ years for Christians and Catholics. He must be really mad at you all. Fortunately, there is a Church that Christ is speaking through Prophets and Apostles since 1820. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
 

Adding to the Bible


When in discussion with Mormons I bring up the concept of the closure of Scripture and how we are not to add to the word ie. the Book of Mormon. This why we do not believe that another testament is acceptable or verifiable today. The book of revelation is the closing book for God’s revelation through his prophets to the Church.

We are told several times throughout the Bible not to make additions to God’s word that is called Scripture. Deut. 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.”

Mormons will say this means not to add to the book of Deuteronomy. But although this command is found in this 2nd book of the law it is not exclusive to this one book.

Proverbs 30:5-6 “Every word of God is pure; he is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.”

Mormons will say this means not to add to the book of Proverbs. Again if we look at the context it says “Every word of God”, do not add to His words.

The Bible refers to its writings as Scripture 1 Cor. 4:6 “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.”

Paul was reiterating what has been said in Deuteronomy and Proverbs. To go beyond what Scripture says means one is motivated by pride, the same character trait that made the Devil fall into sin.

Jesus and the apostles all concurred, “The entirety of Your word is truth” (Psalms 119: 160).

The importance of God’s word held in this respect is clear by saying in Psalm 138:2 “You have magnified Your word above all Your name” When a Mormon inadvertently states the book of Mormon is considered the word of God alongside the Bible they have removed the Bibles authority replacing it with a mans.

To clarify what they have done I would like to point out “After Joseph had translated the Book of Mormon from the gold plates, the Lord COMMANDED him to TRANSLATE THE BIBLE. ...[T]his young man, Joseph Smith, ...was commanded to translate the Bible BY INSPIRATION.” LDS “Apostle” Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 15, pp. 247-249)

According to Mormonism Joseph Smith rewrote the Bible in the early 1830's. Without any knowledge of Hebrew or Greek language or manuscripts, he 'restored' what had been lost. This 'restoration of the bible' is known today as the Joseph Smith Translation (JST). What makes this more intriguing is that the Inspired version tells us how Joseph Smith received this revelation to write a NEW Holy book “narrating the experience of Moses when he “was caught up into an exceeding high mountain, and he saw God face to face, and he talked with him”’

Joseph Smith was commanded by God to publish the new translation of the Bible “... I have commanded you to organize yourselves, even to shinelah [print] my words, the fulness of my scriptures ...(Doctrine and Covenants, 104:58).... the second lot ... shall be dedicated unto me for the building of a house unto me, for the work of the printing of the translation of my scriptures ... (ibid. 94:10).…hearken to the counsel of my servant Joseph,... and publish the new translation of my holy word unto the inhabitants of the earth (ibid. 124:89).​

Joseph wrote: “I COMPLETED the translation and review of the NEW TESTAMENT on the 2nd of February, 1833, and sealed it up, no more to be opened till it arrived in Zion.” (LDS “Prophet” Joseph Smith, February 2, 1833, and Times and Seasons 5:723) “We returned gratitude to our Heavenly Father... having finished the translation of the Bible a few hours since....” LDS “Prophet” Joseph Smith, LDS “President” Sidney Rigdon and LDS “President” F. G. Williams, History of the Church, Vol. 1, pp. 368-369, July 2, 1833. In its completion there would be over 9000 changes.

February 1995 a BYU professor stated, “With the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible, the Prophet restored truth lost through the corruption of ancient texts and gave us the scriptures 'even as they are in [God's] own bosom, to the salvation of [his] own elect' (D&C 35:20).” (Kent P. Jackson, Ensign, 2/95, p. 63).

So we are to accept these just as one would accept the former 66 books of the Bible. Further we are to accept the fact the Bible is corrupted that it needed a modern prophet to restore its truth.

“Important changes were made in several thousand verses, but there are yet thousands of passages to be revised, clarified, and perfected. After his work of revision, the Prophet frequently quoted parts of the King James Version, announced that they contained errors, and gave clarified translations -- none of which he had incorporated into his prior revisions of the Bible. (Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie, p.384, under Inspired Version of the Bible)​

Joseph Smith’s “Inspired” version did not make any changes to Esther, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi, Second John or Third John, all of which were deemed “correct” by Smith. However, The Song of Solomon was designated “not inspired writing” and was excluded. Joseph Smith made changes in the book of Genesis 32 different statements about the book of Genesis.

For example in his Inspired Version King James Version Genesis chapter1:1 And it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven and this earth; write the words which I speak.

2 I am the Beginning and the End; the Almighty God. By mine Only Begotten I created these things.

3 Yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest.

Yes it all sounds like the Bible but it is not God’s word but a mans misinterpretation and addition of it. There is no Hebrew text that says this, so one can only wonder where Smith found these words? (Maybe he pulled them out of a hat). Clearly the phrase I am the Beginning and the End is a New Testament phrase as is Only Begotten (which is Greek -monogenes for God’s son). This proves Smith did not translate the Bible of which he knew NO Hebrew or Greek.

In Genesis 1-8 he taught that Adam, Enoch, and Noah all accepted and taught the gospel of Jesus Christ, this is impossible since the one the gospel centers on was not even yet born, died or raised.

188 changes were made in Psalms. Isaiah received more changes than any other Old Testament book.

The New Testament received more than twice as many changes as the Old Testament. Which makes not sense since we have more manuscript evidence for the New Testament than any other ancient literature. Smith was not aware of this because of his lack of education and the many discoveries that took place since he did his translation. Fourteen books remained unchanged after Smith completed his revisions, three of these (Philemon and 2 and 3 John) were in the New Testament. Smith proceeded to make 560 changes in the book of Luke. 483 in Matthew. John had 159 changes.

Smith said he helped translate only the books that we have difficulty with. What is very contradicting is that their church does not accept the Joseph Smith Translation as one of their Standard Works. Instead of his translation they use the King James Version that Joseph Smith found needing to be repaired because of it corruption. Go figure.

Now back to the Bible…

Prov. 30:6 “Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.” This was written long before the book of Revelation and as I have already pointed out it is not exclusive to this book. God is saying for MAN not to add to his words (God can expand on His Word, man cannot). So we need to ask if a man would be a liar if he added to God’s word? Would Joseph Smith qualify for this?

God says in the last book of his word Revelation 21:8 “and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

To sum this all up Joseph Smith said an incredible statement: the book of Revelation was the plainest book God caused to be written.

Revelation 22:18-19 “For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

I ask the Mormons would these curses would be in effect if anyone added or subtracted to the Book of Revelation in any way. Their reply is this would obviously be so.

Unaware that in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible: he (Joseph Smith) had added to, or subtracted from the Book of Revelation over 85 times.

What does God say to those who do this?
 
Adding to the Bible


When in discussion with Mormons I bring up the concept of the closure of Scripture and how we are not to add to the word ie. the Book of Mormon. This why we do not believe that another testament is acceptable or verifiable today. The book of revelation is the closing book for God’s revelation through his prophets to the Church.

We are told several times throughout the Bible not to make additions to God’s word that is called Scripture. Deut. 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.”

Mormons will say this means not to add to the book of Deuteronomy. But although this command is found in this 2nd book of the law it is not exclusive to this one book.

Proverbs 30:5-6 “Every word of God is pure; he is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.”

Mormons will say this means not to add to the book of Proverbs. Again if we look at the context it says “Every word of God”, do not add to His words.

The Bible refers to its writings as Scripture 1 Cor. 4:6 “that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.”

Paul was reiterating what has been said in Deuteronomy and Proverbs. To go beyond what Scripture says means one is motivated by pride, the same character trait that made the Devil fall into sin.

Jesus and the apostles all concurred, “The entirety of Your word is truth” (Psalms 119: 160).

The importance of God’s word held in this respect is clear by saying in Psalm 138:2 “You have magnified Your word above all Your name” When a Mormon inadvertently states the book of Mormon is considered the word of God alongside the Bible they have removed the Bibles authority replacing it with a mans.

To clarify what they have done I would like to point out “After Joseph had translated the Book of Mormon from the gold plates, the Lord COMMANDED him to TRANSLATE THE BIBLE. ...[T]his young man, Joseph Smith, ...was commanded to translate the Bible BY INSPIRATION.” LDS “Apostle” Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 15, pp. 247-249)

According to Mormonism Joseph Smith rewrote the Bible in the early 1830's. Without any knowledge of Hebrew or Greek language or manuscripts, he 'restored' what had been lost. This 'restoration of the bible' is known today as the Joseph Smith Translation (JST). What makes this more intriguing is that the Inspired version tells us how Joseph Smith received this revelation to write a NEW Holy book “narrating the experience of Moses when he “was caught up into an exceeding high mountain, and he saw God face to face, and he talked with him”’

Joseph Smith was commanded by God to publish the new translation of the Bible “... I have commanded you to organize yourselves, even to shinelah [print] my words, the fulness of my scriptures ...(Doctrine and Covenants, 104:58).... the second lot ... shall be dedicated unto me for the building of a house unto me, for the work of the printing of the translation of my scriptures ... (ibid. 94:10).…hearken to the counsel of my servant Joseph,... and publish the new translation of my holy word unto the inhabitants of the earth (ibid. 124:89).​

Joseph wrote: “I COMPLETED the translation and review of the NEW TESTAMENT on the 2nd of February, 1833, and sealed it up, no more to be opened till it arrived in Zion.” (LDS “Prophet” Joseph Smith, February 2, 1833, and Times and Seasons 5:723) “We returned gratitude to our Heavenly Father... having finished the translation of the Bible a few hours since....” LDS “Prophet” Joseph Smith, LDS “President” Sidney Rigdon and LDS “President” F. G. Williams, History of the Church, Vol. 1, pp. 368-369, July 2, 1833. In its completion there would be over 9000 changes.

February 1995 a BYU professor stated, “With the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible, the Prophet restored truth lost through the corruption of ancient texts and gave us the scriptures 'even as they are in [God's] own bosom, to the salvation of [his] own elect' (D&C 35:20).” (Kent P. Jackson, Ensign, 2/95, p. 63).

So we are to accept these just as one would accept the former 66 books of the Bible. Further we are to accept the fact the Bible is corrupted that it needed a modern prophet to restore its truth.

“Important changes were made in several thousand verses, but there are yet thousands of passages to be revised, clarified, and perfected. After his work of revision, the Prophet frequently quoted parts of the King James Version, announced that they contained errors, and gave clarified translations -- none of which he had incorporated into his prior revisions of the Bible. (Mormon Doctrine, Bruce R. McConkie, p.384, under Inspired Version of the Bible)​

Joseph Smith’s “Inspired” version did not make any changes to Esther, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Malachi, Second John or Third John, all of which were deemed “correct” by Smith. However, The Song of Solomon was designated “not inspired writing” and was excluded. Joseph Smith made changes in the book of Genesis 32 different statements about the book of Genesis.

For example in his Inspired Version King James Version Genesis chapter1:1 And it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven and this earth; write the words which I speak.

2 I am the Beginning and the End; the Almighty God. By mine Only Begotten I created these things.

3 Yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest.

Yes it all sounds like the Bible but it is not God’s word but a mans misinterpretation and addition of it. There is no Hebrew text that says this, so one can only wonder where Smith found these words? (Maybe he pulled them out of a hat). Clearly the phrase I am the Beginning and the End is a New Testament phrase as is Only Begotten (which is Greek -monogenes for God’s son). This proves Smith did not translate the Bible of which he knew NO Hebrew or Greek.

In Genesis 1-8 he taught that Adam, Enoch, and Noah all accepted and taught the gospel of Jesus Christ, this is impossible since the one the gospel centers on was not even yet born, died or raised.

188 changes were made in Psalms. Isaiah received more changes than any other Old Testament book.

The New Testament received more than twice as many changes as the Old Testament. Which makes not sense since we have more manuscript evidence for the New Testament than any other ancient literature. Smith was not aware of this because of his lack of education and the many discoveries that took place since he did his translation. Fourteen books remained unchanged after Smith completed his revisions, three of these (Philemon and 2 and 3 John) were in the New Testament. Smith proceeded to make 560 changes in the book of Luke. 483 in Matthew. John had 159 changes.

Smith said he helped translate only the books that we have difficulty with. What is very contradicting is that their church does not accept the Joseph Smith Translation as one of their Standard Works. Instead of his translation they use the King James Version that Joseph Smith found needing to be repaired because of it corruption. Go figure.

Now back to the Bible…

Prov. 30:6 “Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.” This was written long before the book of Revelation and as I have already pointed out it is not exclusive to this book. God is saying for MAN not to add to his words (God can expand on His Word, man cannot). So we need to ask if a man would be a liar if he added to God’s word? Would Joseph Smith qualify for this?

God says in the last book of his word Revelation 21:8 “and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

To sum this all up Joseph Smith said an incredible statement: the book of Revelation was the plainest book God caused to be written.

Revelation 22:18-19 “For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

I ask the Mormons would these curses would be in effect if anyone added or subtracted to the Book of Revelation in any way. Their reply is this would obviously be so.

Unaware that in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible: he (Joseph Smith) had added to, or subtracted from the Book of Revelation over 85 times.

What does God say to those who do this?
When you get this wordy it means you are trying to cover up something. What it is is that each time you point to a scripture saying don’t add more, there was more added. So, everything after Duet is null-in-void. It’s not scripture. So, why do you accept everything through Revelation? And, Revelation isn’t the last of John’s writings. Did you know that?
So, let me give you another scripture Amos 3:7. The Lord reveals things through only prophets called by the Lord. That’s why after Duet more of God’s plan has been revealed. He said the same thing with Peter being the receiver of revelation from the Rock of Revelation. So, there is no ending of the Lord’s revelations through prophets. He did so with Joseph Smith and continues to through the current prophet Russel M. Nelson. Thank God for a prophet. We need them in these latter days.
 
When you get this wordy it means you are trying to cover up something. What it is is that each time you point to a scripture saying don’t add more, there was more added. So, everything after Duet is null-in-void. It’s not scripture. So, why do you accept everything through Revelation? And, Revelation isn’t the last of John’s writings. Did you know that?
So, let me give you another scripture Amos 3:7. The Lord reveals things through only prophets called by the Lord. That’s why after Duet more of God’s plan has been revealed. He said the same thing with Peter being the receiver of revelation from the Rock of Revelation. So, there is no ending of the Lord’s revelations through prophets. He did so with Joseph Smith and continues to through the current prophet Russel M. Nelson. Thank God for a prophet. We need them in these latter days.
I have Jesus and His Spirit. That's all anyone needs.
 

Forum List

Back
Top