Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Diopolis]

It's a fair question as to whether or not the Papacy must be installed in Rome, but until our churches reconcile the point is moot.

However, Francis and many Latin theologians have acknowledged and confessed a willingness to negotiate on just how the Papacy would affect the eastern churches should we unify.

Frankly my biggest concern would be how to organize missionary work. Historically, all new converts to the Catholic Church have been converted into the Latin Rite. That would have to change - radically.

As long as the Latin Rite is treated as the "default rite", Rome's claim to treat all ancient traditions equally is a joke.

Well, technically, that's not entirely true. It happens that historical missionary efforts outside of Christian areas have always been funded by latin rulers- especially spanish and portuguese monarchs- but eastern european and middle eastern missionaries have often converted to the eastern rites rather than the latin.

[Diopolis]

The Catholic Church has been open to compromise before. They attempted to 'Latinize' Maronite rites, but ultimately decided to allow the Maronites to retain their own rites, in their own language. And we remain faithful to the Holy See and in communion with Rome.

Allowing you to retain your rites? That is not a compromise. That's basic decency. The fact that they even tried to "Latinize" Maronite rites is an outrage.

A compromise would be something like this: From now on, 1 out of every 100 Catholic missionaries will be trained in the Maronite Rite, and 1 out of every 100 new Catholic churches built in missionary lands (Africa, Asia, etc.) will use the Maronite Rite.

The problem with Rome's treatment of its Eastern Rites is precisely the fact that they are being treated as ethnic peculiarities, to be retained by specific ethnic groups, but not to be expanded by converting any new people to them.

This is utterly unacceptable. Why should Africans, or Asians, be converted to the Latin Rite instead of the Maronite Rite for example? Why is the Latin Rite being treated as the main Rite, while all the others are treated as exceptions?

Because the funding and priests for missionary activity comes through latin rite organizations. A big part of this is because latin rite priests, being celibate, simply have more flexibility to disappear to blackest africa for years on end- and latin religious orders are not as enclosed as eastern ones. Also, bear in mind that the way the church is structured is different from how you imagine it. No one protests when the russian orthodox church sends missionaries to convert, say, argentines into the russian orthodox church instead of the greek one. Eastern rite churches are sort of like that- the amount of authority the bishop of rome has over them in the spiritual realm is fairly limited, and most of them simply chose not to conduct massive missionary campaigns to africa and and asia. In large part this is because they don't have the resources- their priest shortage isn't any better than the latins' is(which I think casts doubt on the idea that it's celibacy driving the priest shortage, but that's a subject for another time), and a smaller, poorer population base means less money to conduct missions with.

[Diopolis]

You can't tell me you're "one church" when crap like the Crete council shenangan happens.

What happened in Crete was basically that the modernist/ecumenist faction in the Orthodox Church tried to hold a Council and the traditionalist faction sabotaged it. Traditionalists see this as a victory for Church unity, because they believe they successfully prevented the ecumenists from making any changes.

It's as if the Catholic Church tried holding Vatican II but most of the bishops didn't show up and later refused to sign anything - without a Pope to force the issue.

That's an interesting simile, because Vatican II was at the time, expected to be a Vatican I/Trent 2.0. It wasn't because... the modernists sabotaged it, and even then didn't get it fully done. They had to clean up afterwards with implementation that often contradicted the council itself. In the Orthodox church, it appears that the modernists called a council intending to do that, and then the traditionalists used their institutional strength to torpedo it before it had even left the port.

Wouldn't be surprised if it was UST. They're a Pontifical university, after all.

I have no idea where this is in relation to you in the Philippines, but I know the Archbishop of Cebu is fairly fond of Pontifical High Masses.

I've been to a pontifical solemn mass before. It was celebrated by an abbot, though.
Check the websites of major latin mass fraternities- they'll likely have a list of locations organized by country.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

On that topic, though, a question for traditional Catholics or Catholics in general: Why do traditionalist Catholics feel the Tridentine Mass needs to be in Latin? What would be the problem translating it into the lingua franca?

Beacuse Latin is really important, I think.

Never been to Tridentine Mass.

[Gim]

On that topic, though, a question for traditional Catholics or Catholics in general: Why do traditionalist Catholics feel the Tridentine Mass needs to be in Latin? What would be the problem translating it into the lingua franca?

Beacuse Latin is really important, I think.

Never been to Tridentine Mass.

Not many speak Latin these days, though.

[Dylar]

Beacuse Latin is really important, I think.

Never been to Tridentine Mass.

Not many speak Latin these days, though.

Except for 1 billion Catholics that sing/chant the Kyrie, the Agnus Dei, and/or the Tantum Ergo every Sunday.

[Gim]

Not many speak Latin these days, though.

Except for 1 billion Catholics that sing/chant the Kyrie, the Agnus Dei, and/or the Tantum Ergo every Sunday.

Yeah, I see.

[ThePeacekeepers]

Alright, finally had enough time to sit down and address this.

When I said he I had meant they, which is my bad.
The scholars who translated the bible chose to use that word because it more clearly shows the message Paul was trying to convey. Because the word he used still meant study, so they wrote study instead of endeavor so that people would clearly understand Paul's message without it being turned into something Paul did not mean. If you look at the original definition of the word Word: spoudazw
Pronounce: spoo-dad'-zo
Strongs Number: G4704
Orig: from 4710; to use speed, i.e. to make effort, be prompt or earnest:--do (give) diligence, be diligent (forward), endeavour, labour, study. G4710
Use: TDNT-7:559,1069 Verb
Heb Strong: H213 H926 H2814
1) to hasten, make haste
2) to exert one's self, endeavour, give diligence
it shows that you are to endeavor, labour, and study. Studying being the key component in what Paul was talking about a the time, so again looking at the original meaning only serves to prove my point.

I suppose it’s pointless to reiterate to you, that just about every modern Biblical scholar disagrees with you. Even the Anglican Church, which produced the King James Version, (for which you have an unfounded but steadfast loyalty to) basically admitted the error and when producing their updated manuscript, the “New” King James Version, changed their translation to one similar to the one I’ve repeatedly shown to you.
NKJV: 2 Timothy 2:15 “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
I also suppose it would be pointless to point out the damning flaw in your argument. Your argument essentially boils down to a claim that the KJV scholars were right, and every other biblical scholar who disagrees with them, is wrong. Your argument is essentially that the KJV alone is correct, for which there is no actual basis in fact. Now, not to upset the English, the KJV is without a doubt one of the most important books in Western History. I have a collector’s edition copy of it sitting on my bookshelf. And while, I’ve flippantly chastised it in the past, it is a very decent translation of the “Textus Receptus”. However, does that make it free from error? No, because translation is not simple and eternal, it is a constantly evolving discipline as more and more information becomes available. This is why the Neste-Atland New Testament, basically the standard for all non-KJV derivative texts, doesn’t pull just from the Textus Receptus, but is cobbled together from all the pieces of the NT we have found. Translation information has been pulled from virtually every Greek source that we have a record of. Our translation abilities are vastly superior to that of the Greek sources available to English academics in the 17th century.

And I suppose it would be pointless to point out to you, that despite all the various sources we have, the hundreds and hundreds of Greek manuscripts from ages and ages, to the point where lexicons will cite dozens of uses of words to prove its definition, they can only cite one definitive usage of the word σπουδάζω being translated as having anything to do with “study.” It was from one work by the Greek Sophist Philostratus, and even this word usage, is only in implication. For in Philostratus’s work, “Vitae Sophistarum” he uses the word “σπουδαζων” the participle form of the word. Which means it literally translates to the “ones working” with the implied notion that the work these one’s are doing is studying, because he’s describing students. He even uses the word again later in the same text, in the same fashion, only there the implication is “lecturing” because he’s describing teachers.

I suppose it’s also pointless to point out to you, that Philostratus wrote that work 150- 200 years after Paul had died. Which would mean the scholars translated Paul’s words, according to an extremely obscure, approximated usage of the word, that didn’t even appear in the Greek Lexicon, until long after Paul had died. I’m hoping you’re beginning to see just how completely wrong you are, but you’ve proven unwilling to consider any contextual information about this passage so far.

So the only way I think I can prove it to you, is to show you specifically how wrong you are, by evaluating the Greek itself. So I pulled out my lexicon, reference books, and Greek NT, and set about to translate this passage. In doing so, I actually recognized the mistake the translators made, and it’s a fairly easy mistake to make. However, to explain it entirely would take far too long and would be difficult to explain via text. (But if you want me to, I’ll take the time) So I’ll skip to the pertinent part. The phrase in question, of 2 Timothy 2:15 is “σπουδασον σεαυτον” Now σπουδασοv is the imperative case of σπουδάζω, it is a command, which on its own, could potentially but not probably mean Study. However, it is paired with σεαυτον, a reflexive pronoun meaning “yourself”, and (This is the key part) in the accusative case. Which means that “yourself” is the object of the verb σπουδασοv. Now if we translate this as study, the command would be to “Study yourself” Not study for yourself, but to literally make yourself the object of your study. Which, while already doesn’t fit with the claim your making about it meaning to study scripture, doesn’t really make sense in the Greek either. So what does make sense? Translating the word as Endeavor, such as “Endeavor yourself.” So a literal translation of the passage would be “Endeavor yourself, to present yourself approved to God” We drop the first "yourself" because it’s clunky in English. thus becoming, “Endeavor to present yourself approved to God.

So finally after showing you the context, the data, history, and giving you a first hand grammatical analysis, there is no evidence to suggest that what you’re saying is correct. I think I’ve proven it beyond any doubt.

Now, if you want to say that as part of that diligent effort we are supposed to study, and I would agree with. But that would be an interpretation.

I did not say we are apostles but we are indeed disciples and followers of Christ, as such we to are sent out to preach his word and do as the apostles did since they are the example of what we must do here on earth to serve Yahweh. So again what Christ said to them still applies to directly to us, since we all to do as they did and preach and die in his name.

So were not called to be apostles, but were called to do everything the Apostles did? That would by definition make us apostles. I’ll try to explain it again. The term Apostle is not a random title, it’s a derivative from their calling. It literally means “the sent.” The title is implicit of function. If we are all to do as they are to do, it means that we are in fact Apostles. This is a simple question of logic. Now we are absolutely called to be disciples, to learn the doctrines and live according to them as best we can, but that’s not the same thing.

So again what Christ said to them still applies to directly to us, since we all to do as they did and preach and die in his name.

No, we aren’t. That would make us apostles. Now some are called to take up this mantle of Apostle, to stand in their office, but that is a highly controlled and regulated office. We call them Priests.

The Holy spirit guides us to the truth, through the spirit of truth God gives us understanding of his word and guides us to the light of his word. The Holy spirit now just as with the apostles gives us understanding and the gifts Yahweh, though each person is given different gifts all who have them posses the holy spirit.

Ah but the gift of knowledge is one of those gifts that that only some people get.
1 Corinthians 12: 8 To some people the Spirit gives a message of wisdom. To others the same Spirit gives a message of knowledge. 9 To others the same Spirit gives faith.

Paul is clearly saying that we don’t all have the gift of wisdom and knowledge from the Holy Spirit. Only some do. So you are claiming that your gift, from the Holy Spirit, is knowledge, a claim which you have no basis for. Now yes, the Holy Spirit does lead us to the truth, but that does not inherently mean you get divine revelation from the Holy Spirit as to what is true and what is not, as you read along. Case in point the Eunuch. He read the Scriptures and could make his own interpretations on them, but he openly admitted that unless someone with knowledge taught him what it meant, he would not be able to adequately understand it. As the Passage of the Eunuch shows us, the Holy Spirit leads us to truth, by leading us to people who already know the truth, who have said gift of knowledge.
This is why we must understand that not every promise in the Gospel was made to every Christian. Some people were chosen for specific tasks, and were given specific promises. The Apostles obtained their knowledge directly from Christ. That knowledge is preserved within the Church, in all its Scriptures and Traditions.

This is something I’ve tried to explain to you multiple times. There is no guarantee the Holy Spirit is guiding your understanding. Given that as it says, only some people receive this gift of Knowledge, it is far more likely that your interpretation (which is extremely fundamentalist in nature) is your own understanding, not the Holy Spirit's. And given this disparity, you have no reasonable expectation that your interpretation is divinely inspired. This is the mission of the Church, who have the Apostolic Authority. You can have reasonable expectation of their knowledge, because it was promised to it, in a way it wasn’t promised us as individuals.

All ministers who preach the word of Yahweh and teach his word do as the apostles did, so to say we are not to teach is saying that we are to let man remain ignorant of the word of God.

On the contrary, its saying the deaf should not lead the blind. If you yourself are ignorant or inadequately educated on the subject matter, then you should not be the one to proclaim the Gospel to other people. It’s far more likely you will give them bad information, and lead them astray.

Minsters should preach. Laymen should not, without the blessing and/or guidance of a minister. That is the point here.

Now if the teacher teaches that which is against the word spoken of by the apostles or Christ then the teacher is false and his word is of satan.

Which is exactly my point.

So we must be able to discern truth from lies, studying to show ourselves approved and our doctrine correct.

But if they use the same book you do, how can you know? Without any authority, all you have as the basis of your argument is your interpretation verses theirs. You can “prove” it all you want by regurgitating as much scripture as you can, but this doesn’t effectively prove anything, except to those who already agree with you, for they will also regurgitate scripture that supports their position. And then we get into an extremely long text proofing discussion which is in itself, counter-productive, because the scriptures were never meant to be text proofed. Hell they weren’t even written with the intention of being scripture.

The way you see it we are not to study for ourselves but to accept blindly without questioning anything, even though you are being taught the doctrines of devils you would not try and find the gospel of truth believing it is not your place to do so and therefore bringing your soul to damnation.

Are you serious? That has never been my position. I have never once claimed that an individual should not study the Bible. I have claimed only that your exposition of 2 Timonthy 2:15, was a mistranslation, and thus invalid proof of your claim. I mean, not to get prideful here, but I’ve studied scripture far more in depth than you have. I’ve studied its words, its history, the culture which produced it, the institution which codified it. I literally read it in Greek so I can get as close to the original meaning as possible. And I cross reference it with other multiple languages. I’ve studied the science of Biblical interpretation. I wasn’t born in to the Catholic Church, I chose it, after years of study.
You’ve shown nothing more than google skills and what you heard your pastor say in service. So don’t tell me, that I don’t study.
The claim I have made, if any, is that study should be guided by the Doctrines of the Church, who made it scripture in the first place

As always you attack my person and claim that I have said I am a prophet or an apostle or the direct emissary of Christ risen again in the form of faceless internet persona.

Because, that is how you act. You claim often, that your words, your interpretations, are divine truth, revealed to you by God. Those are your words, not mine. YOU, make the claim. I’d certainly like to believe that God led me to the Church, but I would not be so presumptuous as to make any claims on behalf of God.
Stop acting like it, and I will stop criticizing you for it.

But like I have said countless times to you, if you do not show proof for what you are saying then I will not accept it blindly as you do.

Oh..but you do. You blindly, without any rational basis, believe the Bible to be the unadulterated Word of God. You have no valid reason to believe that, beyond your own calculations, it feels right to you. You claim that this conclusion is brought to you by the Holy Spirit, a claim you also have no rational reason to believe in. It’s self-insulating, circular logic. You’re right, because the Holy Spirit says you’re right. And the Holy Spirit says you’re right, because you say the Holy Spirit says you’re right. And you know the Holy Spirit say's you're right because the Holy Spirit told you so.

Essentially, You’re right, because you think you are, and you’ve convinced yourself that God gave you this knowledge.

My faith in the Church is not blind, it’s a rational deduction based on analysis of history, scripture, theology, philosophy and prayer.

Show me biblical evidence for what you say and I will believe it

And that is your problem. You’ve fallen in with an extremely fundamentalist group, to point where you’re willing believe anything if it can be shown biblically. I would have thought the Flat Earth incident would have opened your eyes to the dangers of this outlook. When you take the Bible outside of its idiom it can be made to say anything anybody wants it to. The Bible does not exist in a vacuum, it cannot be adequately interpreted by just reading the Book, you have to incorporate all your knowledge. You have to understand the culture of the people who wrote it. You have to understand who it was who said that these 73 books were the legitimate books of the Bible, and others weren’t, and you have to understand why.
I constantly rebuff you on this, because I reject this position of scripture alone. It’s simply illogical. It begs a huge question of Why? Why the Bible? Why not anything else?

Now I would like to point this out to you, the Catholic church as an institution is evil.

I will get to all it has done in a second. But first I would like to clarify that there have been those within the church that have received the gift of the holy spirit and have taught/done what the spirit guided the to do and have been saved by the light that was given to them, though again the church is still of satan.

That is your opinion, but in no way a statement of irrefutable fact.

The Catholic church has tortured, burned, massacred, butchered, enslaved, murdered, and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people. The inquisition, the crusades, and the near genocide of the Native Americans should be enough to prove that this is not the church of God.

It is incredibly intellectually disingenuous to distill down the complex sociopolitical issues of these events to simply “evil church.” The Inquisition for example, was an institution dedicated to essentially what we are doing now, rooting out heresy. All it did was Identify heretics, and did so passionately for many of the reason you yourself have made. Heresy leads people astray, condemning them to damnation. Admittedly mistakes were made. But the overwhelming majority of violence was carried out not by the Inquisition, or the Church, but by the Secular authorities. The problem here wasn’t so much the Church, but Feudalism. Kings and Lords depended on homogenous populations to maintain public order. Heretics were a subversion to this established order, and were rooted out, often violently in order to maintain this hegemonic control. The Church has on multiple times acknowledged its sins in these instances, and even asked for forgiveness from surviving traditions. For instance the Waldensians you mentioned, Pope Francis reconciled with them over the issue two years ago. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/20 ... he-church/
Your logic also fails considerably, if the logic is also applied to you. You claim you are proclaiming the true Doctrine of Christ, but if we looked at every one of your sins over your life time, it would be just as easy to judge you as a man of Satan, as you do the Church. So I’m just as justified in calling you satanic, and not a follower of Christ.

The real problem with your position here is not that its spurious, Protestant Propaganda, but that it’s simplistic logic that undermines the very essence of Christianity. Your criticism reduces authenticity to an ideological purity test that, by Christian Theological standards cannot be achieved. You claim the Church is illegitimate because it sins, when the entire Christian religion is based on the concept that no one is without sin. By your own argument, no Christian nor Church can ever claim to be legitimate. I’m claiming that though man and Church might lose their way and sin, even grievously, that doesn’t put them beyond redemption. So I ask you, which position sounds more Christian?

The Church will always be flawed, because it will always be comprised of humans, and humans being weak can fall away from the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But Christ promised the Spirit will not abandon the Church, even when it screws up. I mean look at Saint Peter. St. Peter screws up constantly, and yet Christ still gives him authority and standing in the Church. St. Peter's life, like the life of all Christians is an arc that curves towards righteousness. The history of the Church is an arc that bends towards righteousness.

If not, then simply look at indulgences, persecution/torture/murder of those who even sought to study let alone possess a bible, the implementation of pagan traditions and rituals/festivals for money/power, the fact that they have put a single man at the head of their Church and say that he is sole emissary/mediator/spokesman of God.

A. Indulgences are not a problem, selling them was. This conflict stems from Protestants not understanding what Indulgences actually are. Indulgences are not “Get into heaven free cards.” All they do is give prayer for reduction of time an individual must spend in Purgatory. Purgatory also isn’t what the Protestants tend to believe it is, there are no potentially damned in Purgatory. Purgatory is the process of purification one goes through as they enter heaven. If heaven where an airport, Purgatory would essentially be the security line.
B. Nobody, not one person in Catholic history was ever persecuted simply for studying or possessing a Bible. The Bible was available in the Latin vulgate, and open to study to all who were able, which anybody in the merchant class and up, was and did. The issue was about “vernacular” translations of the Bible, and it had very little to do with the Bibles themselves, but the sociopolitical issues surrounding the groups who produced said Bibles. Again, I’m not saying the Church was justified in everything it did, but to dumb down and simplify these events is just plain disingenuous.
C. The pagan argument is one I’ve seen crop up more and more from many extreme fundamentalist groups, but it’s ridiculous. First of all, there is no pagan practice in the Catholic Church. At no point do we offer prayers and sacrifice to Odin, Zeus, or any of the other thousands of pagan gods and goddesses. We worship God, and God alone. And every practice we have, is put towards glorifying Him. Just because we celebrate Christ’s birthday on Dec 25th and the cult of Mithras celebrated his on the same day, doesn’t mean we are celebrating Mithras' birthday by some weird proxy. Symbols and rituals have no inherent meaning. Their meaning is derived from the ones who employ them. If we have appropriated some pagan activities, and changed them into Christian worship, it doesn’t insult God or give those pagan deities any glory, it only demonstrates the Might of God prevailing over those false idols.
D. Uh, we believe none of those things about the Pope. The Pope’s authority is ecclesial not sacramental. The Pope isn’t the true Head of the Church, he’s merely the foremost priest on earth. He guides the Church in his role as a Pastor and Priest. He doesn’t rule it, he leads it. Now we do call him the Vicar of Christ, because in Christ's perpetual absence, he is the foremost authority over the Church on Earth, but neither his power nor his teachings are absolute. Granted some Popes have tried to rule the world, but again with the whole flawed human thing.

Lastly, a lot of your criticisms are incredibly anachronistic. The Inquisition? The Crusades? Those are Hundreds of years old. When’s the last time you heard of the Catholic Church burning heretics, or calling on heads of states to invade Muslim lands. Hell American Protestants hate Pope Francis because he calls for them not to. I mean, at least come at me with something recent, like the molestation issue.

Is this not enough? Does anything the Catholic church as an institution has done even remotely resemble the form of godliness it professes? Nothing they did or do gives credence to that claim, this is not the Church of Yahweh but the Church of Lucifer.

Literally nothing? They don’t do anything right? We’re just killing babies and stuff over her? Come on man.

Peter was not the foundation of this satanic Catholic Church as the church claims. Though he was and still is an important part of Yahweh's Church founded on Christ.
The passage you are thinking of is talking about Christ himself, Christ is the rock the church of Yahweh is founded on.

See, this is one of the problems with text proofing that I mentioned before. Yes, there are a lot of rock metaphors in the Bible. Christ was a builder, he worked a lot with stones, it makes sense. However, just because they get used a lot, doesn’t mean it always means the same thing. A rock doesn’t automatically mean Christ, it has to be unpacked within each metaphor. I’ll go down a bit of the list:

Yahweh said there was to be a new covenant.
Jerimiah 31:31-34

This has nothing to do with rocks metaphors, you’re trying to contrive one into existence here.

A cornerstone is Laid down, a tried stone, on which a new covenant will be made and the old will not stand.
Isaiah 28:14-19

This is a pretty contentious prophecy, and it’s unclear specifically what the “foundation” that is being referred to in the passage. There are several possibilities, with Christ being one of them, but more likely the New Covenant itself. The cornerstone here is presented as firm everlasting foundation, as opposed to the all the flimsiness that have corrupted the old covenant. Either way, just because the metaphor is used here, doesn’t mean it is the same metaphor everywhere else.

Yahushua the Christ is the chief cornerstone, the stone on which Yahweh's church is founded.

Ephesians 2:19-22

Yes this claims Christ is the chief Cornerstone, but it also claims the Apostles and the Prophets as part of that same foundation: “20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” The metaphor here is to iterate that Christ is the bit that binds everything together. He’s not merely the foundation of the Church, he’s the focal point of the entire religion. His role is far more important than the mere foundation of the Church.



Matt 16:17-18
And here we get to the main contention:
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”

Now, I’m not gonna mince words here, the rock here is clearly Peter. I’ve studied this single passage for the last six years and written multiple commentaries on it. I can tell you now with absolute certainty, that whatever nonsense someone has fed you about “Petros/petra” or big rocks and little rocks, is exactly that. Nonsense. It’s contrived posturing based on inadequate knowledge of Koine Greek, text proofing, and a desire to undermine Catholic Theology.

The issue here is not that Simon is the Rock, or that the Church is founded on him, the question is what does that mean within the confines of the passage?What does Christ mean by saying that? And it’s very simple. Christ calls Simon the Rock after he confesses that Christ is the Messiah. Peter is the first person to confess his faith in Christ. Peter is the first Christian, he is the first member of the Church, and that Church is not going to remain just as Peter, it is going to continue to grow. That’s all this means. Peter is the First, of many to come. That is why he is called the rock, because from him or as Christ says, upon him, the Church will grow in membership. And that’s what we mean, when we say “The Church, founded upon St. Peter” It means, “The Ecclessia, the assembly of believers, that started with St. Peter.” We’re talking about an unbroken line of succession and faith, between current Christians, and the First Christian, St. Peter.

This title of Peter, has little to do with his office as the first Pope. That comes later in the passage.

-snip-

I cut the rest out, because there’s not point in going through them all. I think the point is made

The Church I have been apart of did not break from the Adventists, I don't even know where you go that idea. But while we are on the subject they do have more truth in their doctrine than what I have heard you say.

I only assumed you were part of this church because you cited it as a source when you declared, unequivocally, that world is flat…..so what was that about truth?

It is hard to take you serious when you go down the train of thought that says the word of the apostles and even of Christ is not be trusted or kept.

Well, I’ve actually never said that, so I don’t see the problem here.

Also I do not know where you are getting any of what you just said, your own personal interpretation of what I have said I'm guessing. I will try harder to help you more clearly understand what I am saying.

I agree, that Phillip was brought to the Eunuch to teach him, guided by the Holy spirit. Though this does not discount what I am saying, and I would like to point out again that I see nothing wrong with and in fact give full support to the positions of pastors, bishops, and deacons. We need people to teach us the word of Yahweh but we are also to study the doctrine they give to us on our own to show ourselves approved and to test soundness of what they are teaching.

But what you can’t see is how that Logic is inconsistent. You reject the Catholic Church, as an invalid teacher, on account of its sins. You require a perfect tract record as proof that an authority is valid. But since no authority can have a perfect tract record then that means there are no valid authorities. Therefore, you cannot accept pastors bishops and deacons, (all positions within the Catholic Church mind you) because those are men and they sin. If we continue the logic further, that means you also can't trust the Bible as a valid authority either, because it was written by sinful men, and codified by sinful men. Your position dictates that there is no valid authority of morality and teaching, therefore there is no truth.

This position isn't new. It's very similar to the Donatists. They were rejected by the Church over a thousand years ago.

The holy spirit will help us to recognize Yahweh's teachers and his word, but as it has always been the spirit of truth does bring to certain men new light which they are to teach others.

And those teachers and that “new light” had to be recognized by the Church. Otherwise St. Paul said to throw them out. People might bring new ideas, but they were never given authority to overthrow the Church, because the Church “IS” Yahweh’s teachers. They have the valid authority.

Now the flat earth I am actually ashamed of, since I did believe it but looking further could not accept it to be true. I asked everyone for poof in the bible to show the earth round not because I was certain but because I doubted the validity of it and wanted to see what information you and others on here could produce to either reaffirm this belief or disprove it. When I came on here I wanted to see what you people had to say on the subject, using the bible, to help me with my own doubts on the matter.

And I know I’ve kicked you over this a couple times, but I do so for a reason. Not to run you down, but to illuminate a point. Your own interpretation is not as concrete as you think it is.

This does not mean that what else I have said is false simply because I was wrong about it being flat, the rest of what I said I can indeed prove about the earth being fixed and the sun revolving around it, and the moon sun and stars being within the firmament that I can prove. On closer inspection though I could not prove that the earth was flat through extensive study. So as I have said before if I cannot prove something without a doubt, using the bible, I will not preach it and I will admit when I am wrong about something.

Except the same science that proves the Earth is round, also proves the earth moves around the sun. I mean just think about this rationally for a second. The New Horizons space probe, was launched by NASA in 2006. In 9 years, it traveled about 7.5 Billion miles to Pluto, an incredibly precarious journey that required absolute precision. If their course was off even a fraction of a percent it would have missed Pluto by hundreds of thousands of miles. These calculations were made based on a heliocentric model of the solar system, and it was done successfully. There are pictures, you can see them. IF that model was wrong, and the Genesis depiction accurate: it never would have worked. The calculations would be wrong.

You’re not wrong totally because you were wrong about that bit. You’re wrong because we can scientifically prove you’re wrong. I mean, what’s more likely? That all these scientists, which includes Christians, are on a mission from Satan to deceive us? That they know the universe revolves around the Earth, so they can make accurate calculations and just lie to us about it? Or that in 3000 BC, perhaps they didn’t have a firm grasp on the fundamentals of Astrophysics and Astronomy?

You prove the Light given is true by showing that it goes along with rest of the scripture and what it says, and proving the light you have been given with many passages and even whole chapters all saying the same thing from the bible.

Firstly, you should always study whole chapters, hell the entire books, as the Bible was not written in verse. The Chapters and Verses were added much, much later.

Also if it is indeed the truth, then once proven using scripture, then the Church and its people would accept it as such and there would be no need for them to leave since all the people within and the Church itself are of Yahweh.

You’re assuming an awful lot. What if they don’t? By your logic, if the Church rejects this “light”, no matter how a person might “prove it”, then it is false. You’re still emphasizing the importance of the Church here, you’re essentially advocating for my position.

So what I have said does not go against the words of John or any of the Apostles for that matter since those people for who John was speaking of did not preach the word of God but instead followed after their own doctrines and lusts, had they been of Yahweh and done his will and preached his word the Church would have accepted them and they would have stayed.

Oh but it is, YOU advocated that if you prove all your doctrines to your satisfaction, and the Church rejected it, then you should leave. Those were your words. They’re very clear that if you leave the Church and teach different doctrines, you’re not of them, but are Anti-Christ.

What I was speaking when referring to a church of man was a church that does not speak the word of God but teaches doctrines of their own creation and the doctrines of devils.

And this is the logical conundrum you can’t seem to get your head around. The bible itself was created by man. Now we say it’s God breathed or inspired, but it was human hands that wrote it, and human hands that cobbled it together. So, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot reject the Institution, but accept the product. Either the Church and the Bible are valid, or neither are. And if the Bible is valid, than any teachings the Church gives is valid, so long as it doesn’t conflict with the Bible. And if any teaching were to contradict the Bible, it is the teaching that would be invalid, not the Church itself. Consistency is key.

If you look he was speaking to that church and its people since they could only take milk and would choke on meat since they were still of the flesh and not fully living life as Yahweh commanded them to do. Those people were the ones not fit to judge the word of God for themselves since they were still living after the flesh and not after the spirit. If a person is living after the spirit as the apostles did then indeed they would not choke on meat and be able to discern the truth by the guidance of the spirit of truth.

There is one Church, not many. Paul’s letter may have been sent to the members of the Church in that city, but it applies to all the Church, that is why it is included in the Bible We’re all living after the flesh. We’re all guilty.

I see the point you are making, while I disagree that the meaning of this passage is saying that we are not to search scripture and validate what is given/presented to us. So then I say as I've already said every tradition that we have discussed thus far can be shown false in the scripture since it contradicts what has been said by the Apostles and Christ. Also the original meaning shows that we are prove what is given to us, to examine using the scripture as it is our only means of discerning the truth while guided by the holy spirit.

Word: dokimazw

Pronounce: dok-im-ad'-zo

Strongs Number: G1381

Orig: from 1384; to test (literally or figuratively); by implication, to approve:--allow, discern, examine, X like, (ap-)prove, try. G1384

Use: TDNT-2:255,181 Verb

Heb Strong: H974 H977 H2713 H3365 H6884
1) to test, examine, prove, scrutinise (to see whether a thing is genuine or not), as metals
2) to recognise as genuine after examination, to approve, deem worthy

I’m really getting tired at this point (It’s taken me six hours to get this far), so forgive me if I come off snide. I don’t understand how you can’t understand this very simple concept. I’ve never made the claim, that people shouldn’t study the Bible, have knowledge of it, and weigh the teachings against it. The point I have made, in this particular reference, is disputing once again, your demand that all doctrines be inherently biblical. You claim that essentially, that if its not found in the bible it’s not valid. This verse here, in it’s proper translation disagrees with you. It allows for extra-biblical doctrines to exist, so long as they’re delivered by proper authorities, er go. The Church. When it says to “test all things” it doesn’t mean to prove true, as you are asserting, it means to make sure it isn’t false.

I realize that seems semantical but it’s a very important distinction. A doctrine delivered by a proper authority is deemed true, based on the weight of its own authority. HOWEVER, if scripture were to directly contradict said doctrine, then it would override said authority, but if it does not contradict the doctrine, then the doctrine stands. THAT, is my point.

Now I have shown that these quotes support what I have said, we are to be of one mind, one spirit and one doctrine and all be apart of the Church of Yahweh and his son Yahushua the Christ. We are to separate from those Churches who profess Godliness but do that which is against the will of Yahweh and teach doctrines of Devils.

So here you are telling people to leave the Church again. You can’t seem to make up your mind. Either you’re supposed to stay or you’re supposed to leave. I can tell you what the Bible says, (and it’s not leave)

For if we are to be of God's Church we should never leave it. Though if we find ourselves within a church that teaches false doctrines then we should first tell them the error of their ways showing them the falsehood of their beliefs and bring the light of truth to them, though if all deny it then we should not be apart of them for what place does sin have with righteousness.

But figure this logic for me. The Catholic Church codified pretty much the entire canonical Bible list, at the council of Nicea. Random people like you and I didn’t decide what was scripture. The Church decided what was scripture. The Church created the Bible. The Church decreed what the Bible was. Now the Church had also existed for some several hundred years at this point, and they picked books that matched with doctrines they held. They didn’t accept the Gospel of Thomas, because that didn’t jive with their teachings. So what you are presuming is that the ones who picked and compiled the Bible, in accordance with their teachings, don’t actually know the correct interpretations, but you do. And if they won’t listen to you, you should go your own way and teach. Can you not see the absurdity of that logic?

This is another thing you can’t seem to understand. There isn’t “churches.” There is one Church, one true Church, that Christ founded upon the first Christian, St. Peter, if you are not in that Church, you are not in Christ’s Church. It’s that simple.

I'm going to address one point first and then when I have the time, reply to the rest of your post.

Yahweh said there was to be a new covenant.
Jerimiah 31:31-34

This has nothing to do with rocks metaphors, you’re trying to contrive one into existence here.


A cornerstone is Laid down, a tried stone, on which a new covenant will be made and the old will not stand.
Isaiah 28:14-19

This is a pretty contentious prophecy, and it’s unclear specifically what the “foundation” that is being referred to in the passage. There are several possibilities, with Christ being one of them, but more likely the New Covenant itself. The cornerstone here is presented as firm everlasting foundation, as opposed to the all the flimsiness that have corrupted the old covenant. Either way, just because the metaphor is used here, doesn’t mean it is the same metaphor everywhere else.




Yahushua the Christ is the chief cornerstone, the stone on which Yahweh's church is founded.

Ephesians 2:19-22


Yes this claims Christ is the chief Cornerstone, but it also claims the Apostles and the Prophets as part of that same foundation: “20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” The metaphor here is to iterate that Christ is the bit that binds everything together. He’s not merely the foundation of the Church, he’s the focal point of the entire religion. His role is far more important than the mere foundation of the Church.



Matt 16:17-18
And here we get to the main contention:
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”

Now, I’m not gonna mince words here, the rock here is clearly Peter. I’ve studied this single passage for the last six years and written multiple commentaries on it. I can tell you now with absolute certainty, that whatever nonsense someone has fed you about “Petros/petra” or big rocks and little rocks, is exactly that. Nonsense. It’s contrived posturing based on inadequate knowledge of Koine Greek, text proofing, and a desire to undermine Catholic Theology.

The issue here is not that Simon is the Rock, or that the Church is founded on him, the question is what does that mean within the confines of the passage?What does Christ mean by saying that? And it’s very simple. Christ calls Simon the Rock after he confesses that Christ is the Messiah. Peter is the first person to confess his faith in Christ. Peter is the first Christian, he is the first member of the Church, and that Church is not going to remain just as Peter, it is going to continue to grow. That’s all this means. Peter is the First, of many to come. That is why he is called the rock, because from him or as Christ says, upon him, the Church will grow in membership. And that’s what we mean, when we say “The Church, founded upon St. Peter” It means, “The Ecclessia, the assembly of believers, that started with St. Peter.” We’re talking about an unbroken line of succession and faith, between current Christians, and the First Christian, St. Peter.

This title of Peter, has little to do with his office as the first Pope. That comes later in the passage.

I'll break it down for you like this.
Yahweh said there was to be a new covenant.
Jerimiah 31:31-34
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

This is here because this is the beginging and most crucial statement made showing there will be a new covenant made. Under this new covenant he will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more.

A cornerstone is Laid down, a tried stone, on which a new covenant will be made and the old will not stand.
Isaiah 28:14-19
14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.
18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.
19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.

It gives three main descriptions of the stone. It will be a foundation stone, a sure foundation. It is a tried stone. A precious corner stone.
The foundation stone of the new covenant is a precious corner stone which has been tried and will be a sure foundation.
In looking you will see, the cornerstone is the foundation of the church. The cornerstone is a tried stone on which a sure foundation of the church will be made.
2. Their covenant with death shall be disannulled and their agreement will hell shall not stand. It is the precious corner stone that will be the one to disannul this covenant with hell and create a new covenant.
Yahushua the Christ is the chief cornerstone, the stone on which Yahweh's church is founded.
Ephesians 2:19-22
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
The new covenant/Law will be made on the Chief corner stone. The doctrine of the apostles and the prophets are part of that foundation, but Christ is the Chief cornerstone on which the rest of the church is built, he is the bringer of the new covenant and without him there would be no disannulling of the old law. He is the beginning of the Church of the New testament.
Matt 16:17-18
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The rock he is speaking of is the rock spoken of by God on which a new covenant will be made, the cornerstone. The foundation of the new covenant which hell will not prevail against. He is the one who disannuls the old covenant with death.
The stone which the builder's refused is the cornerstone.
Psalm 118:22
22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
Who is the cornerstone on which the new covenant will be founded? The stone which the builders refused is the cornerstone.
Mark 12:10-11
10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
11 This was the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Same meaning as above.
Yahushua is the stone which the builder's refused.
Matt 21:41-46
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.
The stone which the builders rejected is the head stone of the corner or the cornerstone spoken of which will be the foundation of the New covenant/testament.
Acts 4:8-12
8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
9 If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
It clearly states that Christ is the stone which the builders refused the cornerstone. The cornerstone is the foundation of the Lord's church and the foundation of the New covenant.
1 Peter 2:4-10
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
Christ is a living stone disallowed of men but Chosen of God and Precious. Christ is the Chief corner stone elect and precious and we should believe on him.
Again it states that Christ is the stone the builders refused, and the cornerstone the Church is founded on.
Romans 9:31-33
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Christ again is said to be the stone laid down in Sion, the stumblingstone, the rock of offense.
Yahshua is the mediator of the new covenant/testament
Hebrews 12:23-24
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Yahshua is the mediator of the new covenant spoken of in Jeremiah and Isaiah and the foundation.
Hebrews 13:20-21
20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
The Lord's blood fulfilled the whole law of the Old testament and brought about the new.
Hebrews 9:14-15
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

He is the mediator of the new testament/covenant, that through his blood the old was fulfilled and the new was instated.
1 Timothy 2:3-6
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

He is the mediator of the new testament who gave himself over so that man might be saved through him.
Hebrews 8:4-13
4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The new covenant is made through Christ showing that he is the bringer of the new testament and the precious stone/foundation spoken of in Isaiah and Jeremiah.

Jeremiah 28:16
Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Jeremiah 31:31-32
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

Hebrews 7:18-19
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
Hebrews 7:22-24
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
He was the surety of a better testament/covenant/law because the old law made nothing perfect.
Hebrews 12:2
2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Christ is the author and the finisher of our faith, he is the foundation of the Church of God, who died on the cross and sprinkled his blood on the alter in heaven fulfilling the old law and bringing about the new.
Matt 26:26-28
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Through the Blood of Christ the New testament/covenant is made.
Luke 22:19-20
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Same as above.

It is easy to see that by looking at the scripture and seeing what it has to say you will find that Christ is the Precious tried cornerstone that is laid down as a sure foundation on which the New covenant will be made and God's Church will be built upon. No other stone besides the cornerstone/tried stone/precious stone/stone the builder's refused/foundation stone on which a sure foundation will be made: is mentioned. By looking through scripture we find out who the stone spoken of in Isaiah is since he is all the things mentioned above.
Who is the stone the builder's refused? By looking at scripture we see that Christ is the stone the builder's refused.
Who is the cornerstone? It is easy to see that Christ is the cornerstone spoken of in Isaiah.
Who is the mediator/bringer of the new covenant spoken of in Isaiah and jeremiah? By looking at scripture we find that Christ is the mediator/ bringer of the new covenant /testament.

Christ is the rock the church is founded upon, not peter as the catholic church falsely claims and you have stated. Peter would condemn your church and preach against it on every occasion as would Christ or any of the Apostles.

Under scrutiny your doctrine holds no water.


I apologize for the lateness of my response I have been very busy as of late.

[Gim]

Alright, finally had enough time to sit down and address this.



I suppose it’s pointless to reiterate to you, that just about every modern Biblical scholar disagrees with you. Even the Anglican Church, which produced the King James Version, (for which you have an unfounded but steadfast loyalty to) basically admitted the error and when producing their updated manuscript, the “New” King James Version, changed their translation to one similar to the one I’ve repeatedly shown to you.
NKJV: 2 Timothy 2:15 “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
I also suppose it would be pointless to point out the damning flaw in your argument. Your argument essentially boils down to a claim that the KJV scholars were right, and every other biblical scholar who disagrees with them, is wrong. Your argument is essentially that the KJV alone is correct, for which there is no actual basis in fact. Now, not to upset the English, the KJV is without a doubt one of the most important books in Western History. I have a collector’s edition copy of it sitting on my bookshelf. And while, I’ve flippantly chastised it in the past, it is a very decent translation of the “Textus Receptus”. However, does that make it free from error? No, because translation is not simple and eternal, it is a constantly evolving discipline as more and more information becomes available. This is why the Neste-Atland New Testament, basically the standard for all non-KJV derivative texts, doesn’t pull just from the Textus Receptus, but is cobbled together from all the pieces of the NT we have found. Translation information has been pulled from virtually every Greek source that we have a record of. Our translation abilities are vastly superior to that of the Greek sources available to English academics in the 17th century.

And I suppose it would be pointless to point out to you, that despite all the various sources we have, the hundreds and hundreds of Greek manuscripts from ages and ages, to the point where lexicons will cite dozens of uses of words to prove its definition, they can only cite one definitive usage of the word σπουδάζω being translated as having anything to do with “study.” It was from one work by the Greek Sophist Philostratus, and even this word usage, is only in implication. For in Philostratus’s work, “Vitae Sophistarum” he uses the word “σπουδαζων” the participle form of the word. Which means it literally translates to the “ones working” with the implied notion that the work these one’s are doing is studying, because he’s describing students. He even uses the word again later in the same text, in the same fashion, only there the implication is “lecturing” because he’s describing teachers.

I suppose it’s also pointless to point out to you, that Philostratus wrote that work 150- 200 years after Paul had died. Which would mean the scholars translated Paul’s words, according to an extremely obscure, approximated usage of the word, that didn’t even appear in the Greek Lexicon, until long after Paul had died. I’m hoping you’re beginning to see just how completely wrong you are, but you’ve proven unwilling to consider any contextual information about this passage so far.

So the only way I think I can prove it to you, is to show you specifically how wrong you are, by evaluating the Greek itself. So I pulled out my lexicon, reference books, and Greek NT, and set about to translate this passage. In doing so, I actually recognized the mistake the translators made, and it’s a fairly easy mistake to make. However, to explain it entirely would take far too long and would be difficult to explain via text. (But if you want me to, I’ll take the time) So I’ll skip to the pertinent part. The phrase in question, of 2 Timothy 2:15 is “σπουδασον σεαυτον” Now σπουδασοv is the imperative case of σπουδάζω, it is a command, which on its own, could potentially but not probably mean Study. However, it is paired with σεαυτον, a reflexive pronoun meaning “yourself”, and (This is the key part) in the accusative case. Which means that “yourself” is the object of the verb σπουδασοv. Now if we translate this as study, the command would be to “Study yourself” Not study for yourself, but to literally make yourself the object of your study. Which, while already doesn’t fit with the claim your making about it meaning to study scripture, doesn’t really make sense in the Greek either. So what does make sense? Translating the word as Endeavor, such as “Endeavor yourself.” So a literal translation of the passage would be “Endeavor yourself, to present yourself approved to God” We drop the first "yourself" because it’s clunky in English. thus becoming, “Endeavor to present yourself approved to God.

So finally after showing you the context, the data, history, and giving you a first hand grammatical analysis, there is no evidence to suggest that what you’re saying is correct. I think I’ve proven it beyond any doubt.

Now, if you want to say that as part of that diligent effort we are supposed to study, and I would agree with. But that would be an interpretation.




So were not called to be apostles, but were called to do everything the Apostles did? That would by definition make us apostles. I’ll try to explain it again. The term Apostle is not a random title, it’s a derivative from their calling. It literally means “the sent.” The title is implicit of function. If we are all to do as they are to do, it means that we are in fact Apostles. This is a simple question of logic. Now we are absolutely called to be disciples, to learn the doctrines and live according to them as best we can, but that’s not the same thing.


No, we aren’t. That would make us apostles. Now some are called to take up this mantle of Apostle, to stand in their office, but that is a highly controlled and regulated office. We call them Priests.

Ah but the gift of knowledge is one of those gifts that that only some people get.
1 Corinthians 12: 8 To some people the Spirit gives a message of wisdom. To others the same Spirit gives a message of knowledge. 9 To others the same Spirit gives faith.

Paul is clearly saying that we don’t all have the gift of wisdom and knowledge from the Holy Spirit. Only some do. So you are claiming that your gift, from the Holy Spirit, is knowledge, a claim which you have no basis for. Now yes, the Holy Spirit does lead us to the truth, but that does not inherently mean you get divine revelation from the Holy Spirit as to what is true and what is not, as you read along. Case in point the Eunuch. He read the Scriptures and could make his own interpretations on them, but he openly admitted that unless someone with knowledge taught him what it meant, he would not be able to adequately understand it. As the Passage of the Eunuch shows us, the Holy Spirit leads us to truth, by leading us to people who already know the truth, who have said gift of knowledge.
This is why we must understand that not every promise in the Gospel was made to every Christian. Some people were chosen for specific tasks, and were given specific promises. The Apostles obtained their knowledge directly from Christ. That knowledge is preserved within the Church, in all its Scriptures and Traditions.

This is something I’ve tried to explain to you multiple times. There is no guarantee the Holy Spirit is guiding your understanding. Given that as it says, only some people receive this gift of Knowledge, it is far more likely that your interpretation (which is extremely fundamentalist in nature) is your own understanding, not the Holy Spirit's. And given this disparity, you have no reasonable expectation that your interpretation is divinely inspired. This is the mission of the Church, who have the Apostolic Authority. You can have reasonable expectation of their knowledge, because it was promised to it, in a way it wasn’t promised us as individuals.


On the contrary, its saying the deaf should not lead the blind. If you yourself are ignorant or inadequately educated on the subject matter, then you should not be the one to proclaim the Gospel to other people. It’s far more likely you will give them bad information, and lead them astray.

Minsters should preach. Laymen should not, without the blessing and/or guidance of a minister. That is the point here.

Which is exactly my point.


But if they use the same book you do, how can you know? Without any authority, all you have as the basis of your argument is your interpretation verses theirs. You can “prove” it all you want by regurgitating as much scripture as you can, but this doesn’t effectively prove anything, except to those who already agree with you, for they will also regurgitate scripture that supports their position. And then we get into an extremely long text proofing discussion which is in itself, counter-productive, because the scriptures were never meant to be text proofed. Hell they weren’t even written with the intention of being scripture.




Are you serious? That has never been my position. I have never once claimed that an individual should not study the Bible. I have claimed only that your exposition of 2 Timonthy 2:15, was a mistranslation, and thus invalid proof of your claim. I mean, not to get prideful here, but I’ve studied scripture far more in depth than you have. I’ve studied its words, its history, the culture which produced it, the institution which codified it. I literally read it in Greek so I can get as close to the original meaning as possible. And I cross reference it with other multiple languages. I’ve studied the science of Biblical interpretation. I wasn’t born in to the Catholic Church, I chose it, after years of study.
You’ve shown nothing more than google skills and what you heard your pastor say in service. So don’t tell me, that I don’t study.
The claim I have made, if any, is that study should be guided by the Doctrines of the Church, who made it scripture in the first place




Because, that is how you act. You claim often, that your words, your interpretations, are divine truth, revealed to you by God. Those are your words, not mine. YOU, make the claim. I’d certainly like to believe that God led me to the Church, but I would not be so presumptuous as to make any claims on behalf of God.
Stop acting like it, and I will stop criticizing you for it.


Oh..but you do. You blindly, without any rational basis, believe the Bible to be the unadulterated Word of God. You have no valid reason to believe that, beyond your own calculations, it feels right to you. You claim that this conclusion is brought to you by the Holy Spirit, a claim you also have no rational reason to believe in. It’s self-insulating, circular logic. You’re right, because the Holy Spirit says you’re right. And the Holy Spirit says you’re right, because you say the Holy Spirit says you’re right. And you know the Holy Spirit say's you're right because the Holy Spirit told you so.

Essentially, You’re right, because you think you are, and you’ve convinced yourself that God gave you this knowledge.

My faith in the Church is not blind, it’s a rational deduction based on analysis of history, scripture, theology, philosophy and prayer.


And that is your problem. You’ve fallen in with an extremely fundamentalist group, to point where you’re willing believe anything if it can be shown biblically. I would have thought the Flat Earth incident would have opened your eyes to the dangers of this outlook. When you take the Bible outside of its idiom it can be made to say anything anybody wants it to. The Bible does not exist in a vacuum, it cannot be adequately interpreted by just reading the Book, you have to incorporate all your knowledge. You have to understand the culture of the people who wrote it. You have to understand who it was who said that these 73 books were the legitimate books of the Bible, and others weren’t, and you have to understand why.
I constantly rebuff you on this, because I reject this position of scripture alone. It’s simply illogical. It begs a huge question of Why? Why the Bible? Why not anything else?

That is your opinion, but in no way a statement of irrefutable fact.



It is incredibly intellectually disingenuous to distill down the complex sociopolitical issues of these events to simply “evil church.” The Inquisition for example, was an institution dedicated to essentially what we are doing now, rooting out heresy. All it did was Identify heretics, and did so passionately for many of the reason you yourself have made. Heresy leads people astray, condemning them to damnation. Admittedly mistakes were made. But the overwhelming majority of violence was carried out not by the Inquisition, or the Church, but by the Secular authorities. The problem here wasn’t so much the Church, but Feudalism. Kings and Lords depended on homogenous populations to maintain public order. Heretics were a subversion to this established order, and were rooted out, often violently in order to maintain this hegemonic control. The Church has on multiple times acknowledged its sins in these instances, and even asked for forgiveness from surviving traditions. For instance the Waldensians you mentioned, Pope Francis reconciled with them over the issue two years ago. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/20 ... he-church/
Your logic also fails considerably, if the logic is also applied to you. You claim you are proclaiming the true Doctrine of Christ, but if we looked at every one of your sins over your life time, it would be just as easy to judge you as a man of Satan, as you do the Church. So I’m just as justified in calling you satanic, and not a follower of Christ.

The real problem with your position here is not that its spurious, Protestant Propaganda, but that it’s simplistic logic that undermines the very essence of Christianity. Your criticism reduces authenticity to an ideological purity test that, by Christian Theological standards cannot be achieved. You claim the Church is illegitimate because it sins, when the entire Christian religion is based on the concept that no one is without sin. By your own argument, no Christian nor Church can ever claim to be legitimate. I’m claiming that though man and Church might lose their way and sin, even grievously, that doesn’t put them beyond redemption. So I ask you, which position sounds more Christian?

The Church will always be flawed, because it will always be comprised of humans, and humans being weak can fall away from the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But Christ promised the Spirit will not abandon the Church, even when it screws up. I mean look at Saint Peter. St. Peter screws up constantly, and yet Christ still gives him authority and standing in the Church. St. Peter's life, like the life of all Christians is an arc that curves towards righteousness. The history of the Church is an arc that bends towards righteousness.

A. Indulgences are not a problem, selling them was. This conflict stems from Protestants not understanding what Indulgences actually are. Indulgences are not “Get into heaven free cards.” All they do is give prayer for reduction of time an individual must spend in Purgatory. Purgatory also isn’t what the Protestants tend to believe it is, there are no potentially damned in Purgatory. Purgatory is the process of purification one goes through as they enter heaven. If heaven where an airport, Purgatory would essentially be the security line.
B. Nobody, not one person in Catholic history was ever persecuted simply for studying or possessing a Bible. The Bible was available in the Latin vulgate, and open to study to all who were able, which anybody in the merchant class and up, was and did. The issue was about “vernacular” translations of the Bible, and it had very little to do with the Bibles themselves, but the sociopolitical issues surrounding the groups who produced said Bibles. Again, I’m not saying the Church was justified in everything it did, but to dumb down and simplify these events is just plain disingenuous.
C. The pagan argument is one I’ve seen crop up more and more from many extreme fundamentalist groups, but it’s ridiculous. First of all, there is no pagan practice in the Catholic Church. At no point do we offer prayers and sacrifice to Odin, Zeus, or any of the other thousands of pagan gods and goddesses. We worship God, and God alone. And every practice we have, is put towards glorifying Him. Just because we celebrate Christ’s birthday on Dec 25th and the cult of Mithras celebrated his on the same day, doesn’t mean we are celebrating Mithras' birthday by some weird proxy. Symbols and rituals have no inherent meaning. Their meaning is derived from the ones who employ them. If we have appropriated some pagan activities, and changed them into Christian worship, it doesn’t insult God or give those pagan deities any glory, it only demonstrates the Might of God prevailing over those false idols.
D. Uh, we believe none of those things about the Pope. The Pope’s authority is ecclesial not sacramental. The Pope isn’t the true Head of the Church, he’s merely the foremost priest on earth. He guides the Church in his role as a Pastor and Priest. He doesn’t rule it, he leads it. Now we do call him the Vicar of Christ, because in Christ's perpetual absence, he is the foremost authority over the Church on Earth, but neither his power nor his teachings are absolute. Granted some Popes have tried to rule the world, but again with the whole flawed human thing.

Lastly, a lot of your criticisms are incredibly anachronistic. The Inquisition? The Crusades? Those are Hundreds of years old. When’s the last time you heard of the Catholic Church burning heretics, or calling on heads of states to invade Muslim lands. Hell American Protestants hate Pope Francis because he calls for them not to. I mean, at least come at me with something recent, like the molestation issue.


Literally nothing? They don’t do anything right? We’re just killing babies and stuff over her? Come on man.

See, this is one of the problems with text proofing that I mentioned before. Yes, there are a lot of rock metaphors in the Bible. Christ was a builder, he worked a lot with stones, it makes sense. However, just because they get used a lot, doesn’t mean it always means the same thing. A rock doesn’t automatically mean Christ, it has to be unpacked within each metaphor. I’ll go down a bit of the list:

This has nothing to do with rocks metaphors, you’re trying to contrive one into existence here.

This is a pretty contentious prophecy, and it’s unclear specifically what the “foundation” that is being referred to in the passage. There are several possibilities, with Christ being one of them, but more likely the New Covenant itself. The cornerstone here is presented as firm everlasting foundation, as opposed to the all the flimsiness that have corrupted the old covenant. Either way, just because the metaphor is used here, doesn’t mean it is the same metaphor everywhere else.




Yes this claims Christ is the chief Cornerstone, but it also claims the Apostles and the Prophets as part of that same foundation: “20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” The metaphor here is to iterate that Christ is the bit that binds everything together. He’s not merely the foundation of the Church, he’s the focal point of the entire religion. His role is far more important than the mere foundation of the Church.



Matt 16:17-18
And here we get to the main contention:
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”

Now, I’m not gonna mince words here, the rock here is clearly Peter. I’ve studied this single passage for the last six years and written multiple commentaries on it. I can tell you now with absolute certainty, that whatever nonsense someone has fed you about “Petros/petra” or big rocks and little rocks, is exactly that. Nonsense. It’s contrived posturing based on inadequate knowledge of Koine Greek, text proofing, and a desire to undermine Catholic Theology.

The issue here is not that Simon is the Rock, or that the Church is founded on him, the question is what does that mean within the confines of the passage?What does Christ mean by saying that? And it’s very simple. Christ calls Simon the Rock after he confesses that Christ is the Messiah. Peter is the first person to confess his faith in Christ. Peter is the first Christian, he is the first member of the Church, and that Church is not going to remain just as Peter, it is going to continue to grow. That’s all this means. Peter is the First, of many to come. That is why he is called the rock, because from him or as Christ says, upon him, the Church will grow in membership. And that’s what we mean, when we say “The Church, founded upon St. Peter” It means, “The Ecclessia, the assembly of believers, that started with St. Peter.” We’re talking about an unbroken line of succession and faith, between current Christians, and the First Christian, St. Peter.

This title of Peter, has little to do with his office as the first Pope. That comes later in the passage.

I cut the rest out, because there’s not point in going through them all. I think the point is made

I only assumed you were part of this church because you cited it as a source when you declared, unequivocally, that world is flat…..so what was that about truth?

Well, I’ve actually never said that, so I don’t see the problem here.
But what you can’t see is how that Logic is inconsistent. You reject the Catholic Church, as an invalid teacher, on account of its sins. You require a perfect tract record as proof that an authority is valid. But since no authority can have a perfect tract record then that means there are no valid authorities. Therefore, you cannot accept pastors bishops and deacons, (all positions within the Catholic Church mind you) because those are men and they sin. If we continue the logic further, that means you also can't trust the Bible as a valid authority either, because it was written by sinful men, and codified by sinful men. Your position dictates that there is no valid authority of morality and teaching, therefore there is no truth.

This position isn't new. It's very similar to the Donatists. They were rejected by the Church over a thousand years ago.


And those teachers and that “new light” had to be recognized by the Church. Otherwise St. Paul said to throw them out. People might bring new ideas, but they were never given authority to overthrow the Church, because the Church “IS” Yahweh’s teachers. They have the valid authority.

And I know I’ve kicked you over this a couple times, but I do so for a reason. Not to run you down, but to illuminate a point. Your own interpretation is not as concrete as you think it is.


Except the same science that proves the Earth is round, also proves the earth moves around the sun. I mean just think about this rationally for a second. The New Horizons space probe, was launched by NASA in 2006. In 9 years, it traveled about 7.5 Billion miles to Pluto, an incredibly precarious journey that required absolute precision. If their course was off even a fraction of a percent it would have missed Pluto by hundreds of thousands of miles. These calculations were made based on a heliocentric model of the solar system, and it was done successfully. There are pictures, you can see them. IF that model was wrong, and the Genesis depiction accurate: it never would have worked. The calculations would be wrong.

You’re not wrong totally because you were wrong about that bit. You’re wrong because we can scientifically prove you’re wrong. I mean, what’s more likely? That all these scientists, which includes Christians, are on a mission from Satan to deceive us? That they know the universe revolves around the Earth, so they can make accurate calculations and just lie to us about it? Or that in 3000 BC, perhaps they didn’t have a firm grasp on the fundamentals of Astrophysics and Astronomy?



Firstly, you should always study whole chapters, hell the entire books, as the Bible was not written in verse. The Chapters and Verses were added much, much later. You’re assuming an awful lot. What if they don’t? By your logic, if the Church rejects this “light”, no matter how a person might “prove it”, then it is false. You’re still emphasizing the importance of the Church here, you’re essentially advocating for my position.

Oh but it is, YOU advocated that if you prove all your doctrines to your satisfaction, and the Church rejected it, then you should leave. Those were your words. They’re very clear that if you leave the Church and teach different doctrines, you’re not of them, but are Anti-Christ.


And this is the logical conundrum you can’t seem to get your head around. The bible itself was created by man. Now we say it’s God breathed or inspired, but it was human hands that wrote it, and human hands that cobbled it together. So, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot reject the Institution, but accept the product. Either the Church and the Bible are valid, or neither are. And if the Bible is valid, than any teachings the Church gives is valid, so long as it doesn’t conflict with the Bible. And if any teaching were to contradict the Bible, it is the teaching that would be invalid, not the Church itself. Consistency is key.


There is one Church, not many. Paul’s letter may have been sent to the members of the Church in that city, but it applies to all the Church, that is why it is included in the Bible We’re all living after the flesh. We’re all guilty.



I’m really getting tired at this point (It’s taken me six hours to get this far), so forgive me if I come off snide. I don’t understand how you can’t understand this very simple concept. I’ve never made the claim, that people shouldn’t study the Bible, have knowledge of it, and weigh the teachings against it. The point I have made, in this particular reference, is disputing once again, your demand that all doctrines be inherently biblical. You claim that essentially, that if its not found in the bible it’s not valid. This verse here, in it’s proper translation disagrees with you. It allows for extra-biblical doctrines to exist, so long as they’re delivered by proper authorities, er go. The Church. When it says to “test all things” it doesn’t mean to prove true, as you are asserting, it means to make sure it isn’t false.

I realize that seems semantical but it’s a very important distinction. A doctrine delivered by a proper authority is deemed true, based on the weight of its own authority. HOWEVER, if scripture were to directly contradict said doctrine, then it would override said authority, but if it does not contradict the doctrine, then the doctrine stands. THAT, is my point.
So here you are telling people to leave the Church again. You can’t seem to make up your mind. Either you’re supposed to stay or you’re supposed to leave. I can tell you what the Bible says, (and it’s not leave)



But figure this logic for me. The Catholic Church codified pretty much the entire canonical Bible list, at the council of Nicea. Random people like you and I didn’t decide what was scripture. The Church decided what was scripture. The Church created the Bible. The Church decreed what the Bible was. Now the Church had also existed for some several hundred years at this point, and they picked books that matched with doctrines they held. They didn’t accept the Gospel of Thomas, because that didn’t jive with their teachings. So what you are presuming is that the ones who picked and compiled the Bible, in accordance with their teachings, don’t actually know the correct interpretations, but you do. And if they won’t listen to you, you should go your own way and teach. Can you not see the absurdity of that logic?

This is another thing you can’t seem to understand. There isn’t “churches.” There is one Church, one true Church, that Christ founded upon the first Christian, St. Peter, if you are not in that Church, you are not in Christ’s Church. It’s that simple.

I'm going to address one point first and then when I have the time, reply to the rest of your post.

Yahweh said there was to be a new covenant.
Jerimiah 31:31-34

This has nothing to do with rocks metaphors, you’re trying to contrive one into existence here.


A cornerstone is Laid down, a tried stone, on which a new covenant will be made and the old will not stand.
Isaiah 28:14-19

This is a pretty contentious prophecy, and it’s unclear specifically what the “foundation” that is being referred to in the passage. There are several possibilities, with Christ being one of them, but more likely the New Covenant itself. The cornerstone here is presented as firm everlasting foundation, as opposed to the all the flimsiness that have corrupted the old covenant. Either way, just because the metaphor is used here, doesn’t mean it is the same metaphor everywhere else.




Yahushua the Christ is the chief cornerstone, the stone on which Yahweh's church is founded.

Ephesians 2:19-22


Yes this claims Christ is the chief Cornerstone, but it also claims the Apostles and the Prophets as part of that same foundation: “20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” The metaphor here is to iterate that Christ is the bit that binds everything together. He’s not merely the foundation of the Church, he’s the focal point of the entire religion. His role is far more important than the mere foundation of the Church.



Matt 16:17-18
And here we get to the main contention:
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”

Now, I’m not gonna mince words here, the rock here is clearly Peter. I’ve studied this single passage for the last six years and written multiple commentaries on it. I can tell you now with absolute certainty, that whatever nonsense someone has fed you about “Petros/petra” or big rocks and little rocks, is exactly that. Nonsense. It’s contrived posturing based on inadequate knowledge of Koine Greek, text proofing, and a desire to undermine Catholic Theology.

The issue here is not that Simon is the Rock, or that the Church is founded on him, the question is what does that mean within the confines of the passage?What does Christ mean by saying that? And it’s very simple. Christ calls Simon the Rock after he confesses that Christ is the Messiah. Peter is the first person to confess his faith in Christ. Peter is the first Christian, he is the first member of the Church, and that Church is not going to remain just as Peter, it is going to continue to grow. That’s all this means. Peter is the First, of many to come. That is why he is called the rock, because from him or as Christ says, upon him, the Church will grow in membership. And that’s what we mean, when we say “The Church, founded upon St. Peter” It means, “The Ecclessia, the assembly of believers, that started with St. Peter.” We’re talking about an unbroken line of succession and faith, between current Christians, and the First Christian, St. Peter.

This title of Peter, has little to do with his office as the first Pope. That comes later in the passage.

I'll break it down for you like this.
Yahweh said there was to be a new covenant.
Jerimiah 31:31-34
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

This is here because this is the beginging and most crucial statement made showing there will be a new covenant made. Under this new covenant he will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more.

A cornerstone is Laid down, a tried stone, on which a new covenant will be made and the old will not stand.
Isaiah 28:14-19
14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.
18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.
19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.

It gives three main descriptions of the stone. It will be a foundation stone, a sure foundation. It is a tried stone. A precious corner stone.
The foundation stone of the new covenant is a precious corner stone which has been tried and will be a sure foundation.
In looking you will see, the cornerstone is the foundation of the church. The cornerstone is a tried stone on which a sure foundation of the church will be made.
2. Their covenant with death shall be disannulled and their agreement will hell shall not stand. It is the precious corner stone that will be the one to disannul this covenant with hell and create a new covenant.
Yahushua the Christ is the chief cornerstone, the stone on which Yahweh's church is founded.
Ephesians 2:19-22
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
The new covenant/Law will be made on the Chief corner stone. The doctrine of the apostles and the prophets are part of that foundation, but Christ is the Chief cornerstone on which the rest of the church is built, he is the bringer of the new covenant and without him there would be no disannulling of the old law. He is the beginning of the Church of the New testament.
Matt 16:17-18
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The rock he is speaking of is the rock spoken of by God on which a new covenant will be made, the cornerstone. The foundation of the new covenant which hell will not prevail against. He is the one who disannuls the old covenant with death.
The stone which the builder's refused is the cornerstone.
Psalm 118:22
22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
Who is the cornerstone on which the new covenant will be founded? The stone which the builders refused is the cornerstone.
Mark 12:10-11
10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
11 This was the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Same meaning as above.
Yahushua is the stone which the builder's refused.
Matt 21:41-46
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.
The stone which the builders rejected is the head stone of the corner or the cornerstone spoken of which will be the foundation of the New covenant/testament.
Acts 4:8-12
8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
9 If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
It clearly states that Christ is the stone which the builders refused the cornerstone. The cornerstone is the foundation of the Lord's church and the foundation of the New covenant.
1 Peter 2:4-10
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
Christ is a living stone disallowed of men but Chosen of God and Precious. Christ is the Chief corner stone elect and precious and we should believe on him.
Again it states that Christ is the stone the builders refused, and the cornerstone the Church is founded on.
Romans 9:31-33
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Christ again is said to be the stone laid down in Sion, the stumblingstone, the rock of offense.
Yahshua is the mediator of the new covenant/testament
Hebrews 12:23-24
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Yahshua is the mediator of the new covenant spoken of in Jeremiah and Isaiah and the foundation.
Hebrews 13:20-21
20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
The Lord's blood fulfilled the whole law of the Old testament and brought about the new.
Hebrews 9:14-15
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

He is the mediator of the new testament/covenant, that through his blood the old was fulfilled and the new was instated.
1 Timothy 2:3-6
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

He is the mediator of the new testament who gave himself over so that man might be saved through him.
Hebrews 8:4-13
4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The new covenant is made through Christ showing that he is the bringer of the new testament and the precious stone/foundation spoken of in Isaiah and Jeremiah.

Jeremiah 28:16
Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Jeremiah 31:31-32
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

Hebrews 7:18-19
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
Hebrews 7:22-24
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
He was the surety of a better testament/covenant/law because the old law made nothing perfect.
Hebrews 12:2
2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Christ is the author and the finisher of our faith, he is the foundation of the Church of God, who died on the cross and sprinkled his blood on the alter in heaven fulfilling the old law and bringing about the new.
Matt 26:26-28
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Through the Blood of Christ the New testament/covenant is made.
Luke 22:19-20
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Same as above.

It is easy to see that by looking at the scripture and seeing what it has to say you will find that Christ is the Precious tried cornerstone that is laid down as a sure foundation on which the New covenant will be made and God's Church will be built upon. No other stone besides the cornerstone/tried stone/precious stone/stone the builder's refused/foundation stone on which a sure foundation will be made: is mentioned. By looking through scripture we find out who the stone spoken of in Isaiah is since he is all the things mentioned above.
Who is the stone the builder's refused? By looking at scripture we see that Christ is the stone the builder's refused.
Who is the cornerstone? It is easy to see that Christ is the cornerstone spoken of in Isaiah.
Who is the mediator/bringer of the new covenant spoken of in Isaiah and jeremiah? By looking at scripture we find that Christ is the mediator/ bringer of the new covenant /testament.

Christ is the rock the church is founded upon, not peter as the catholic church falsely claims and you have stated. Peter would condemn your church and preach against it on every occasion as would Christ or any of the Apostles.

Under scrutiny your doctrine holds no water.


I apologize for the lateness of my response I have been very busy as of late.

That's a lengthy counterclaim.

[Free Maronites]

Please, for love of all that is holy and good, learn to edit quotes and ensure that only the latest relevant information is presented. So that nobody here has to go through several pages worth of past discussion.

[Salus Maior]

It's typical of Peacekeepers and Tars to argue like that.

[Constantinopolis]

Is it time to mark another Great Feast of the Church? Indeed it is! As a matter of fact, this is the last Great Feast of the liturgical year (the liturgical year begins on September 1st and ends on August 31st). And on a personal note, this also happens to be the day when I began my journey to Orthodoxy, years ago.

The Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos
(also called the Assumption of the Theotokos)



August 15th is the most important of the feast days dedicated to the Theotokos (the Mother of God). In many places it is referred to as "St. Mary's Day", which is a reminder of its significance, because there are other days (and other Great Feasts, too) dedicated to the Theotokos, but this is THE day to celebrate her. It is the day that marks her death and bodily assumption into Heaven.

In general, with almost every saint, the day set aside to celebrate him or her is the day of that saint's death - because it is also the day of that saint's entrance to Heaven, and because we must remember that, in Christ, our departure from this world becomes an occasion for joy and not for sorrow. A few particularly significant saints are celebrated on other days as well, besides the day of their death. This is also the case with the Mother of God. But the day of the saint's death always remains the most important.

And on this day, we remember and celebrate everything about the Theotokos, with a particular focus on the latter part of her life - after the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ, and after Pentecost. Given her young age when Christ was born, she was probably in her 50s at the time of the Resurrection. And we know from Church Tradition that she lived on Earth for many more years after that. She was a great teacher and guide for the Church in Jerusalem, telling the Apostles about those parts of the life of Christ that they never witnessed themselves. She participated in the writing of the Gospels; she was the one who told the story of the Annunciation and of the Birth of Christ, for example, which no other disciples saw for themselves. Think about that the next time you hear the Christmas story: Who is the narrator? Who was there and later told the tale to the Gospel authors? Mary.

As you know, when He was on the Cross, Christ left His mother in the care of the Apostle John the Theologian. She became part of his household, and sometimes traveled with him on his journeys, or to escape persecution. We know that she was in Ephesus for a time, and later also in Cyprus. There is also an account which claims that she once landed on the peninsula that is now called Mount Athos after her ship was blown off course by a storm, and that she liked the place so much that she prayed to her son to grant it to her as a garden.

St. Ambrose of Milan, based on earlier works by saints Dionysius the Areopagite and Ignatius the God-Bearer, wrote about the Theotokos that “She was a Virgin not only in body, but also in soul, humble of heart, circumspect in word, wise in mind, not overly given to speaking, a lover of reading and of work, and prudent in speech. Her rule of life was to offend no one, to intend good for everyone, to respect the aged, not envy others, avoid bragging, be healthy of mind, and to love virtue.”

Regarding the circumstances of her death, we know that she was in Jerusalem and that she knew in advance that her time to depart this life was approaching, after being told about it by an angel. There was enough time for many of the Apostles and other disciples to gather at her deathbed (some sources claim that some of the Apostles were miraculously transported to Jerusalem to be with her, after she prayed to her son to help them arrive). In any case, she died peacefully, and was buried. Then, just a short while later, the Apostle Thomas arrived in Jerusalem - having traveled from somewhere far in the east - and he was very distraught that he did not get to speak to the Theotokos one last time. To make him feel better, the others agreed to open the tomb in which they had placed the Theotokos, so that St. Thomas could say farewell. But when they opened the tomb, they found it empty. The body of the Mother of God had been taken to Heaven to be rejoined with her soul.

Some hymns for the occasion on YouTube:
Troparion of the Dormition of the Theotokos (in several different languages)
Troparion of the Dormition of the Theotokos (in English; video from a Divine Liturgy)
Doxastikon for the Dormition of The Theotokos (in English)
Doxastikon for the Dormition of the Theotokos (in Greek, then Arabic, then English)

Troparion:

In giving birth you preserved your virginity,
In falling asleep you did not forsake the world, O Theotokos.
You were translated to life, O Mother of Life,
And by your prayers, you deliver our souls from death.

Kontakion:

Neither the tomb, nor death could hold the Theotokos,
Who is constant in prayer and our firm hope in her intercessions.
For being the Mother of Life,
She was translated to life by the One who dwelt in her virginal womb.

And finally, a few different performances of Agni Parthene (O Virgin Pure), which is probably my favourite hymn. It is not related to this feast in particular, but it is dedicated to the Theotokos, and especially beautiful:

Agni Parthene (O Virgin Pure) in Greek, performed by Divna Ljubojević
^ Seriously, if you click on nothing else, click at least on this link. You won't regret it.

Agni Parthene (O Virgin Pure) in Arabic, by Fayrouz
Agni Parthene (O Virgin Pure) in Greek and English, by Eikona
Agni Parthene (O Virgin Pure) in English, by the Boston Byzantine Choir
Agni Parthene (O Virgin Pure) by the monks of Simonopetra on Mount Athos

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Alright, finally had enough time to sit down and address this.



I suppose it’s pointless to reiterate to you, that just about every modern Biblical scholar disagrees with you. Even the Anglican Church, which produced the King James Version, (for which you have an unfounded but steadfast loyalty to) basically admitted the error and when producing their updated manuscript, the “New” King James Version, changed their translation to one similar to the one I’ve repeatedly shown to you.
NKJV: 2 Timothy 2:15 “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
I also suppose it would be pointless to point out the damning flaw in your argument. Your argument essentially boils down to a claim that the KJV scholars were right, and every other biblical scholar who disagrees with them, is wrong. Your argument is essentially that the KJV alone is correct, for which there is no actual basis in fact. Now, not to upset the English, the KJV is without a doubt one of the most important books in Western History. I have a collector’s edition copy of it sitting on my bookshelf. And while, I’ve flippantly chastised it in the past, it is a very decent translation of the “Textus Receptus”. However, does that make it free from error? No, because translation is not simple and eternal, it is a constantly evolving discipline as more and more information becomes available. This is why the Neste-Atland New Testament, basically the standard for all non-KJV derivative texts, doesn’t pull just from the Textus Receptus, but is cobbled together from all the pieces of the NT we have found. Translation information has been pulled from virtually every Greek source that we have a record of. Our translation abilities are vastly superior to that of the Greek sources available to English academics in the 17th century.

And I suppose it would be pointless to point out to you, that despite all the various sources we have, the hundreds and hundreds of Greek manuscripts from ages and ages, to the point where lexicons will cite dozens of uses of words to prove its definition, they can only cite one definitive usage of the word σπουδάζω being translated as having anything to do with “study.” It was from one work by the Greek Sophist Philostratus, and even this word usage, is only in implication. For in Philostratus’s work, “Vitae Sophistarum” he uses the word “σπουδαζων” the participle form of the word. Which means it literally translates to the “ones working” with the implied notion that the work these one’s are doing is studying, because he’s describing students. He even uses the word again later in the same text, in the same fashion, only there the implication is “lecturing” because he’s describing teachers.

I suppose it’s also pointless to point out to you, that Philostratus wrote that work 150- 200 years after Paul had died. Which would mean the scholars translated Paul’s words, according to an extremely obscure, approximated usage of the word, that didn’t even appear in the Greek Lexicon, until long after Paul had died. I’m hoping you’re beginning to see just how completely wrong you are, but you’ve proven unwilling to consider any contextual information about this passage so far.

So the only way I think I can prove it to you, is to show you specifically how wrong you are, by evaluating the Greek itself. So I pulled out my lexicon, reference books, and Greek NT, and set about to translate this passage. In doing so, I actually recognized the mistake the translators made, and it’s a fairly easy mistake to make. However, to explain it entirely would take far too long and would be difficult to explain via text. (But if you want me to, I’ll take the time) So I’ll skip to the pertinent part. The phrase in question, of 2 Timothy 2:15 is “σπουδασον σεαυτον” Now σπουδασοv is the imperative case of σπουδάζω, it is a command, which on its own, could potentially but not probably mean Study. However, it is paired with σεαυτον, a reflexive pronoun meaning “yourself”, and (This is the key part) in the accusative case. Which means that “yourself” is the object of the verb σπουδασοv. Now if we translate this as study, the command would be to “Study yourself” Not study for yourself, but to literally make yourself the object of your study. Which, while already doesn’t fit with the claim your making about it meaning to study scripture, doesn’t really make sense in the Greek either. So what does make sense? Translating the word as Endeavor, such as “Endeavor yourself.” So a literal translation of the passage would be “Endeavor yourself, to present yourself approved to God” We drop the first "yourself" because it’s clunky in English. thus becoming, “Endeavor to present yourself approved to God.

So finally after showing you the context, the data, history, and giving you a first hand grammatical analysis, there is no evidence to suggest that what you’re saying is correct. I think I’ve proven it beyond any doubt.

Now, if you want to say that as part of that diligent effort we are supposed to study, and I would agree with. But that would be an interpretation.




So were not called to be apostles, but were called to do everything the Apostles did? That would by definition make us apostles. I’ll try to explain it again. The term Apostle is not a random title, it’s a derivative from their calling. It literally means “the sent.” The title is implicit of function. If we are all to do as they are to do, it means that we are in fact Apostles. This is a simple question of logic. Now we are absolutely called to be disciples, to learn the doctrines and live according to them as best we can, but that’s not the same thing.


No, we aren’t. That would make us apostles. Now some are called to take up this mantle of Apostle, to stand in their office, but that is a highly controlled and regulated office. We call them Priests.

Ah but the gift of knowledge is one of those gifts that that only some people get.
1 Corinthians 12: 8 To some people the Spirit gives a message of wisdom. To others the same Spirit gives a message of knowledge. 9 To others the same Spirit gives faith.

Paul is clearly saying that we don’t all have the gift of wisdom and knowledge from the Holy Spirit. Only some do. So you are claiming that your gift, from the Holy Spirit, is knowledge, a claim which you have no basis for. Now yes, the Holy Spirit does lead us to the truth, but that does not inherently mean you get divine revelation from the Holy Spirit as to what is true and what is not, as you read along. Case in point the Eunuch. He read the Scriptures and could make his own interpretations on them, but he openly admitted that unless someone with knowledge taught him what it meant, he would not be able to adequately understand it. As the Passage of the Eunuch shows us, the Holy Spirit leads us to truth, by leading us to people who already know the truth, who have said gift of knowledge.
This is why we must understand that not every promise in the Gospel was made to every Christian. Some people were chosen for specific tasks, and were given specific promises. The Apostles obtained their knowledge directly from Christ. That knowledge is preserved within the Church, in all its Scriptures and Traditions.

This is something I’ve tried to explain to you multiple times. There is no guarantee the Holy Spirit is guiding your understanding. Given that as it says, only some people receive this gift of Knowledge, it is far more likely that your interpretation (which is extremely fundamentalist in nature) is your own understanding, not the Holy Spirit's. And given this disparity, you have no reasonable expectation that your interpretation is divinely inspired. This is the mission of the Church, who have the Apostolic Authority. You can have reasonable expectation of their knowledge, because it was promised to it, in a way it wasn’t promised us as individuals.


On the contrary, its saying the deaf should not lead the blind. If you yourself are ignorant or inadequately educated on the subject matter, then you should not be the one to proclaim the Gospel to other people. It’s far more likely you will give them bad information, and lead them astray.

Minsters should preach. Laymen should not, without the blessing and/or guidance of a minister. That is the point here.

Which is exactly my point.


But if they use the same book you do, how can you know? Without any authority, all you have as the basis of your argument is your interpretation verses theirs. You can “prove” it all you want by regurgitating as much scripture as you can, but this doesn’t effectively prove anything, except to those who already agree with you, for they will also regurgitate scripture that supports their position. And then we get into an extremely long text proofing discussion which is in itself, counter-productive, because the scriptures were never meant to be text proofed. Hell they weren’t even written with the intention of being scripture.




Are you serious? That has never been my position. I have never once claimed that an individual should not study the Bible. I have claimed only that your exposition of 2 Timonthy 2:15, was a mistranslation, and thus invalid proof of your claim. I mean, not to get prideful here, but I’ve studied scripture far more in depth than you have. I’ve studied its words, its history, the culture which produced it, the institution which codified it. I literally read it in Greek so I can get as close to the original meaning as possible. And I cross reference it with other multiple languages. I’ve studied the science of Biblical interpretation. I wasn’t born in to the Catholic Church, I chose it, after years of study.
You’ve shown nothing more than google skills and what you heard your pastor say in service. So don’t tell me, that I don’t study.
The claim I have made, if any, is that study should be guided by the Doctrines of the Church, who made it scripture in the first place




Because, that is how you act. You claim often, that your words, your interpretations, are divine truth, revealed to you by God. Those are your words, not mine. YOU, make the claim. I’d certainly like to believe that God led me to the Church, but I would not be so presumptuous as to make any claims on behalf of God.
Stop acting like it, and I will stop criticizing you for it.


Oh..but you do. You blindly, without any rational basis, believe the Bible to be the unadulterated Word of God. You have no valid reason to believe that, beyond your own calculations, it feels right to you. You claim that this conclusion is brought to you by the Holy Spirit, a claim you also have no rational reason to believe in. It’s self-insulating, circular logic. You’re right, because the Holy Spirit says you’re right. And the Holy Spirit says you’re right, because you say the Holy Spirit says you’re right. And you know the Holy Spirit say's you're right because the Holy Spirit told you so.

Essentially, You’re right, because you think you are, and you’ve convinced yourself that God gave you this knowledge.

My faith in the Church is not blind, it’s a rational deduction based on analysis of history, scripture, theology, philosophy and prayer.


And that is your problem. You’ve fallen in with an extremely fundamentalist group, to point where you’re willing believe anything if it can be shown biblically. I would have thought the Flat Earth incident would have opened your eyes to the dangers of this outlook. When you take the Bible outside of its idiom it can be made to say anything anybody wants it to. The Bible does not exist in a vacuum, it cannot be adequately interpreted by just reading the Book, you have to incorporate all your knowledge. You have to understand the culture of the people who wrote it. You have to understand who it was who said that these 73 books were the legitimate books of the Bible, and others weren’t, and you have to understand why.
I constantly rebuff you on this, because I reject this position of scripture alone. It’s simply illogical. It begs a huge question of Why? Why the Bible? Why not anything else?

That is your opinion, but in no way a statement of irrefutable fact.



It is incredibly intellectually disingenuous to distill down the complex sociopolitical issues of these events to simply “evil church.” The Inquisition for example, was an institution dedicated to essentially what we are doing now, rooting out heresy. All it did was Identify heretics, and did so passionately for many of the reason you yourself have made. Heresy leads people astray, condemning them to damnation. Admittedly mistakes were made. But the overwhelming majority of violence was carried out not by the Inquisition, or the Church, but by the Secular authorities. The problem here wasn’t so much the Church, but Feudalism. Kings and Lords depended on homogenous populations to maintain public order. Heretics were a subversion to this established order, and were rooted out, often violently in order to maintain this hegemonic control. The Church has on multiple times acknowledged its sins in these instances, and even asked for forgiveness from surviving traditions. For instance the Waldensians you mentioned, Pope Francis reconciled with them over the issue two years ago. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/20 ... he-church/
Your logic also fails considerably, if the logic is also applied to you. You claim you are proclaiming the true Doctrine of Christ, but if we looked at every one of your sins over your life time, it would be just as easy to judge you as a man of Satan, as you do the Church. So I’m just as justified in calling you satanic, and not a follower of Christ.

The real problem with your position here is not that its spurious, Protestant Propaganda, but that it’s simplistic logic that undermines the very essence of Christianity. Your criticism reduces authenticity to an ideological purity test that, by Christian Theological standards cannot be achieved. You claim the Church is illegitimate because it sins, when the entire Christian religion is based on the concept that no one is without sin. By your own argument, no Christian nor Church can ever claim to be legitimate. I’m claiming that though man and Church might lose their way and sin, even grievously, that doesn’t put them beyond redemption. So I ask you, which position sounds more Christian?

The Church will always be flawed, because it will always be comprised of humans, and humans being weak can fall away from the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But Christ promised the Spirit will not abandon the Church, even when it screws up. I mean look at Saint Peter. St. Peter screws up constantly, and yet Christ still gives him authority and standing in the Church. St. Peter's life, like the life of all Christians is an arc that curves towards righteousness. The history of the Church is an arc that bends towards righteousness.

A. Indulgences are not a problem, selling them was. This conflict stems from Protestants not understanding what Indulgences actually are. Indulgences are not “Get into heaven free cards.” All they do is give prayer for reduction of time an individual must spend in Purgatory. Purgatory also isn’t what the Protestants tend to believe it is, there are no potentially damned in Purgatory. Purgatory is the process of purification one goes through as they enter heaven. If heaven where an airport, Purgatory would essentially be the security line.
B. Nobody, not one person in Catholic history was ever persecuted simply for studying or possessing a Bible. The Bible was available in the Latin vulgate, and open to study to all who were able, which anybody in the merchant class and up, was and did. The issue was about “vernacular” translations of the Bible, and it had very little to do with the Bibles themselves, but the sociopolitical issues surrounding the groups who produced said Bibles. Again, I’m not saying the Church was justified in everything it did, but to dumb down and simplify these events is just plain disingenuous.
C. The pagan argument is one I’ve seen crop up more and more from many extreme fundamentalist groups, but it’s ridiculous. First of all, there is no pagan practice in the Catholic Church. At no point do we offer prayers and sacrifice to Odin, Zeus, or any of the other thousands of pagan gods and goddesses. We worship God, and God alone. And every practice we have, is put towards glorifying Him. Just because we celebrate Christ’s birthday on Dec 25th and the cult of Mithras celebrated his on the same day, doesn’t mean we are celebrating Mithras' birthday by some weird proxy. Symbols and rituals have no inherent meaning. Their meaning is derived from the ones who employ them. If we have appropriated some pagan activities, and changed them into Christian worship, it doesn’t insult God or give those pagan deities any glory, it only demonstrates the Might of God prevailing over those false idols.
D. Uh, we believe none of those things about the Pope. The Pope’s authority is ecclesial not sacramental. The Pope isn’t the true Head of the Church, he’s merely the foremost priest on earth. He guides the Church in his role as a Pastor and Priest. He doesn’t rule it, he leads it. Now we do call him the Vicar of Christ, because in Christ's perpetual absence, he is the foremost authority over the Church on Earth, but neither his power nor his teachings are absolute. Granted some Popes have tried to rule the world, but again with the whole flawed human thing.

Lastly, a lot of your criticisms are incredibly anachronistic. The Inquisition? The Crusades? Those are Hundreds of years old. When’s the last time you heard of the Catholic Church burning heretics, or calling on heads of states to invade Muslim lands. Hell American Protestants hate Pope Francis because he calls for them not to. I mean, at least come at me with something recent, like the molestation issue.


Literally nothing? They don’t do anything right? We’re just killing babies and stuff over her? Come on man.

See, this is one of the problems with text proofing that I mentioned before. Yes, there are a lot of rock metaphors in the Bible. Christ was a builder, he worked a lot with stones, it makes sense. However, just because they get used a lot, doesn’t mean it always means the same thing. A rock doesn’t automatically mean Christ, it has to be unpacked within each metaphor. I’ll go down a bit of the list:

This has nothing to do with rocks metaphors, you’re trying to contrive one into existence here.

This is a pretty contentious prophecy, and it’s unclear specifically what the “foundation” that is being referred to in the passage. There are several possibilities, with Christ being one of them, but more likely the New Covenant itself. The cornerstone here is presented as firm everlasting foundation, as opposed to the all the flimsiness that have corrupted the old covenant. Either way, just because the metaphor is used here, doesn’t mean it is the same metaphor everywhere else.




Yes this claims Christ is the chief Cornerstone, but it also claims the Apostles and the Prophets as part of that same foundation: “20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” The metaphor here is to iterate that Christ is the bit that binds everything together. He’s not merely the foundation of the Church, he’s the focal point of the entire religion. His role is far more important than the mere foundation of the Church.



Matt 16:17-18
And here we get to the main contention:
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”

Now, I’m not gonna mince words here, the rock here is clearly Peter. I’ve studied this single passage for the last six years and written multiple commentaries on it. I can tell you now with absolute certainty, that whatever nonsense someone has fed you about “Petros/petra” or big rocks and little rocks, is exactly that. Nonsense. It’s contrived posturing based on inadequate knowledge of Koine Greek, text proofing, and a desire to undermine Catholic Theology.

The issue here is not that Simon is the Rock, or that the Church is founded on him, the question is what does that mean within the confines of the passage?What does Christ mean by saying that? And it’s very simple. Christ calls Simon the Rock after he confesses that Christ is the Messiah. Peter is the first person to confess his faith in Christ. Peter is the first Christian, he is the first member of the Church, and that Church is not going to remain just as Peter, it is going to continue to grow. That’s all this means. Peter is the First, of many to come. That is why he is called the rock, because from him or as Christ says, upon him, the Church will grow in membership. And that’s what we mean, when we say “The Church, founded upon St. Peter” It means, “The Ecclessia, the assembly of believers, that started with St. Peter.” We’re talking about an unbroken line of succession and faith, between current Christians, and the First Christian, St. Peter.

This title of Peter, has little to do with his office as the first Pope. That comes later in the passage.

I cut the rest out, because there’s not point in going through them all. I think the point is made

I only assumed you were part of this church because you cited it as a source when you declared, unequivocally, that world is flat…..so what was that about truth?

Well, I’ve actually never said that, so I don’t see the problem here.
But what you can’t see is how that Logic is inconsistent. You reject the Catholic Church, as an invalid teacher, on account of its sins. You require a perfect tract record as proof that an authority is valid. But since no authority can have a perfect tract record then that means there are no valid authorities. Therefore, you cannot accept pastors bishops and deacons, (all positions within the Catholic Church mind you) because those are men and they sin. If we continue the logic further, that means you also can't trust the Bible as a valid authority either, because it was written by sinful men, and codified by sinful men. Your position dictates that there is no valid authority of morality and teaching, therefore there is no truth.

This position isn't new. It's very similar to the Donatists. They were rejected by the Church over a thousand years ago.


And those teachers and that “new light” had to be recognized by the Church. Otherwise St. Paul said to throw them out. People might bring new ideas, but they were never given authority to overthrow the Church, because the Church “IS” Yahweh’s teachers. They have the valid authority.

And I know I’ve kicked you over this a couple times, but I do so for a reason. Not to run you down, but to illuminate a point. Your own interpretation is not as concrete as you think it is.


Except the same science that proves the Earth is round, also proves the earth moves around the sun. I mean just think about this rationally for a second. The New Horizons space probe, was launched by NASA in 2006. In 9 years, it traveled about 7.5 Billion miles to Pluto, an incredibly precarious journey that required absolute precision. If their course was off even a fraction of a percent it would have missed Pluto by hundreds of thousands of miles. These calculations were made based on a heliocentric model of the solar system, and it was done successfully. There are pictures, you can see them. IF that model was wrong, and the Genesis depiction accurate: it never would have worked. The calculations would be wrong.

You’re not wrong totally because you were wrong about that bit. You’re wrong because we can scientifically prove you’re wrong. I mean, what’s more likely? That all these scientists, which includes Christians, are on a mission from Satan to deceive us? That they know the universe revolves around the Earth, so they can make accurate calculations and just lie to us about it? Or that in 3000 BC, perhaps they didn’t have a firm grasp on the fundamentals of Astrophysics and Astronomy?



Firstly, you should always study whole chapters, hell the entire books, as the Bible was not written in verse. The Chapters and Verses were added much, much later. You’re assuming an awful lot. What if they don’t? By your logic, if the Church rejects this “light”, no matter how a person might “prove it”, then it is false. You’re still emphasizing the importance of the Church here, you’re essentially advocating for my position.

Oh but it is, YOU advocated that if you prove all your doctrines to your satisfaction, and the Church rejected it, then you should leave. Those were your words. They’re very clear that if you leave the Church and teach different doctrines, you’re not of them, but are Anti-Christ.


And this is the logical conundrum you can’t seem to get your head around. The bible itself was created by man. Now we say it’s God breathed or inspired, but it was human hands that wrote it, and human hands that cobbled it together. So, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot reject the Institution, but accept the product. Either the Church and the Bible are valid, or neither are. And if the Bible is valid, than any teachings the Church gives is valid, so long as it doesn’t conflict with the Bible. And if any teaching were to contradict the Bible, it is the teaching that would be invalid, not the Church itself. Consistency is key.


There is one Church, not many. Paul’s letter may have been sent to the members of the Church in that city, but it applies to all the Church, that is why it is included in the Bible We’re all living after the flesh. We’re all guilty.



I’m really getting tired at this point (It’s taken me six hours to get this far), so forgive me if I come off snide. I don’t understand how you can’t understand this very simple concept. I’ve never made the claim, that people shouldn’t study the Bible, have knowledge of it, and weigh the teachings against it. The point I have made, in this particular reference, is disputing once again, your demand that all doctrines be inherently biblical. You claim that essentially, that if its not found in the bible it’s not valid. This verse here, in it’s proper translation disagrees with you. It allows for extra-biblical doctrines to exist, so long as they’re delivered by proper authorities, er go. The Church. When it says to “test all things” it doesn’t mean to prove true, as you are asserting, it means to make sure it isn’t false.

I realize that seems semantical but it’s a very important distinction. A doctrine delivered by a proper authority is deemed true, based on the weight of its own authority. HOWEVER, if scripture were to directly contradict said doctrine, then it would override said authority, but if it does not contradict the doctrine, then the doctrine stands. THAT, is my point.
So here you are telling people to leave the Church again. You can’t seem to make up your mind. Either you’re supposed to stay or you’re supposed to leave. I can tell you what the Bible says, (and it’s not leave)



But figure this logic for me. The Catholic Church codified pretty much the entire canonical Bible list, at the council of Nicea. Random people like you and I didn’t decide what was scripture. The Church decided what was scripture. The Church created the Bible. The Church decreed what the Bible was. Now the Church had also existed for some several hundred years at this point, and they picked books that matched with doctrines they held. They didn’t accept the Gospel of Thomas, because that didn’t jive with their teachings. So what you are presuming is that the ones who picked and compiled the Bible, in accordance with their teachings, don’t actually know the correct interpretations, but you do. And if they won’t listen to you, you should go your own way and teach. Can you not see the absurdity of that logic?

This is another thing you can’t seem to understand. There isn’t “churches.” There is one Church, one true Church, that Christ founded upon the first Christian, St. Peter, if you are not in that Church, you are not in Christ’s Church. It’s that simple.

I'm going to address one point first and then when I have the time, reply to the rest of your post.

Yahweh said there was to be a new covenant.
Jerimiah 31:31-34

This has nothing to do with rocks metaphors, you’re trying to contrive one into existence here.


A cornerstone is Laid down, a tried stone, on which a new covenant will be made and the old will not stand.
Isaiah 28:14-19

This is a pretty contentious prophecy, and it’s unclear specifically what the “foundation” that is being referred to in the passage. There are several possibilities, with Christ being one of them, but more likely the New Covenant itself. The cornerstone here is presented as firm everlasting foundation, as opposed to the all the flimsiness that have corrupted the old covenant. Either way, just because the metaphor is used here, doesn’t mean it is the same metaphor everywhere else.




Yahushua the Christ is the chief cornerstone, the stone on which Yahweh's church is founded.

Ephesians 2:19-22


Yes this claims Christ is the chief Cornerstone, but it also claims the Apostles and the Prophets as part of that same foundation: “20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” The metaphor here is to iterate that Christ is the bit that binds everything together. He’s not merely the foundation of the Church, he’s the focal point of the entire religion. His role is far more important than the mere foundation of the Church.



Matt 16:17-18
And here we get to the main contention:
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”

Now, I’m not gonna mince words here, the rock here is clearly Peter. I’ve studied this single passage for the last six years and written multiple commentaries on it. I can tell you now with absolute certainty, that whatever nonsense someone has fed you about “Petros/petra” or big rocks and little rocks, is exactly that. Nonsense. It’s contrived posturing based on inadequate knowledge of Koine Greek, text proofing, and a desire to undermine Catholic Theology.

The issue here is not that Simon is the Rock, or that the Church is founded on him, the question is what does that mean within the confines of the passage?What does Christ mean by saying that? And it’s very simple. Christ calls Simon the Rock after he confesses that Christ is the Messiah. Peter is the first person to confess his faith in Christ. Peter is the first Christian, he is the first member of the Church, and that Church is not going to remain just as Peter, it is going to continue to grow. That’s all this means. Peter is the First, of many to come. That is why he is called the rock, because from him or as Christ says, upon him, the Church will grow in membership. And that’s what we mean, when we say “The Church, founded upon St. Peter” It means, “The Ecclessia, the assembly of believers, that started with St. Peter.” We’re talking about an unbroken line of succession and faith, between current Christians, and the First Christian, St. Peter.

This title of Peter, has little to do with his office as the first Pope. That comes later in the passage.

I'll break it down for you like this.
Yahweh said there was to be a new covenant.
Jerimiah 31:31-34
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

This is here because this is the beginging and most crucial statement made showing there will be a new covenant made. Under this new covenant he will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more.

A cornerstone is Laid down, a tried stone, on which a new covenant will be made and the old will not stand.
Isaiah 28:14-19
14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.
18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.
19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.

It gives three main descriptions of the stone. It will be a foundation stone, a sure foundation. It is a tried stone. A precious corner stone.
The foundation stone of the new covenant is a precious corner stone which has been tried and will be a sure foundation.
In looking you will see, the cornerstone is the foundation of the church. The cornerstone is a tried stone on which a sure foundation of the church will be made.
2. Their covenant with death shall be disannulled and their agreement will hell shall not stand. It is the precious corner stone that will be the one to disannul this covenant with hell and create a new covenant.
Yahushua the Christ is the chief cornerstone, the stone on which Yahweh's church is founded.
Ephesians 2:19-22
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
The new covenant/Law will be made on the Chief corner stone. The doctrine of the apostles and the prophets are part of that foundation, but Christ is the Chief cornerstone on which the rest of the church is built, he is the bringer of the new covenant and without him there would be no disannulling of the old law. He is the beginning of the Church of the New testament.
Matt 16:17-18
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The rock he is speaking of is the rock spoken of by God on which a new covenant will be made, the cornerstone. The foundation of the new covenant which hell will not prevail against. He is the one who disannuls the old covenant with death.
The stone which the builder's refused is the cornerstone.
Psalm 118:22
22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
Who is the cornerstone on which the new covenant will be founded? The stone which the builders refused is the cornerstone.
Mark 12:10-11
10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
11 This was the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Same meaning as above.
Yahushua is the stone which the builder's refused.
Matt 21:41-46
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.
The stone which the builders rejected is the head stone of the corner or the cornerstone spoken of which will be the foundation of the New covenant/testament.
Acts 4:8-12
8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
9 If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
It clearly states that Christ is the stone which the builders refused the cornerstone. The cornerstone is the foundation of the Lord's church and the foundation of the New covenant.
1 Peter 2:4-10
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
Christ is a living stone disallowed of men but Chosen of God and Precious. Christ is the Chief corner stone elect and precious and we should believe on him.
Again it states that Christ is the stone the builders refused, and the cornerstone the Church is founded on.
Romans 9:31-33
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Christ again is said to be the stone laid down in Sion, the stumblingstone, the rock of offense.
Yahshua is the mediator of the new covenant/testament
Hebrews 12:23-24
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Yahshua is the mediator of the new covenant spoken of in Jeremiah and Isaiah and the foundation.
Hebrews 13:20-21
20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
The Lord's blood fulfilled the whole law of the Old testament and brought about the new.
Hebrews 9:14-15
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

He is the mediator of the new testament/covenant, that through his blood the old was fulfilled and the new was instated.
1 Timothy 2:3-6
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

He is the mediator of the new testament who gave himself over so that man might be saved through him.
Hebrews 8:4-13
4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


The new covenant is made through Christ showing that he is the bringer of the new testament and the precious stone/foundation spoken of in Isaiah and Jeremiah.

Jeremiah 28:16
Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Jeremiah 31:31-32
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

Hebrews 7:18-19
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
Hebrews 7:22-24
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
He was the surety of a better testament/covenant/law because the old law made nothing perfect.
Hebrews 12:2
2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Christ is the author and the finisher of our faith, he is the foundation of the Church of God, who died on the cross and sprinkled his blood on the alter in heaven fulfilling the old law and bringing about the new.
Matt 26:26-28
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Through the Blood of Christ the New testament/covenant is made.
Luke 22:19-20
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Same as above.

Here's where your argument fails:
1. You're making a contrived argument that all stone metaphors in the Bible refer to the same stone. There is no such indication of this. Each metaphor of stone is referring to its own paradigm, as an idiomatic metaphor.

2. You're conflating two things, The Church and the New Covenant. While inherently and inseparably tied to one another, they are not the same thing. The Church is the Body of Believers. The Greek word from which we get the word Church is ἐκκλησία, which means an official assembly of people. The Church is the institutional assembly of believers, structured along the lines of Apostolic Succession. The Covenant is the promise made to this assembly. The nation of Israel was not the Old Covenant itself, they were the the beneficiaries of said covenant. A covenant is an agreement between two parties. The New Covenant is an agreement between God and the Church.

It is easy to see that by looking at the scripture and seeing what it has to say you will find that Christ is the Precious tried cornerstone that is laid down as a sure foundation on which the New covenant will be made

yes, yes it is. I don't know why you bothered to draw up that completely irrelevant map of scripture, there's not a Catholic alive that would claim that Christ is not the foundation on which the New Covenant sits, that Christ is the mediator reconciling man to God and that through him, through his sacrifice we have the Gospel and the promise of salvation and eternal life. No one is disputing this The argument is about who the Church, not the Covenant, is founded upon, which:

and God's Church will be built upon.

not nearly as easy to see that point. You've made no argument for this assertion, instead you've assumed this is the case by equating the Covenant and the Church as the same thing. As I said, this is why your argument fails.

No other stone besides the cornerstone/tried stone/precious stone/stone the builder's refused/foundation stone on which a sure foundation will be made: is mentioned.

This is a bold faced lie considering I directly commented on this in the post you're responding to, on a verse that you cited.

Ephesians 2:“20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets”"

We see a foundation of apostles and prophets directly referenced, and you tried to pretend that didn't exist. You lied.

By looking through scripture we find out who the stone spoken of in Isaiah is since he is all the things mentioned above.
Who is the stone the builder's refused? By looking at scripture we see that Christ is the stone the builder's refused.
Who is the cornerstone? It is easy to see that Christ is the cornerstone spoken of in Isaiah.
Who is the mediator/bringer of the new covenant spoken of in Isaiah and jeremiah? By looking at scripture we find that Christ is the mediator/ bringer of the new covenant /testament.

Again, no Catholic, or other Christian for that matter would dispute that Christ is the Mediator and the Foundation of the New Covenant. What you're not grasping is, that it's irrelevant to the discussion we're having.

Christ is the rock the church is founded upon, not peter as the catholic church falsely claims and you have stated.

You've not proven that, instead you've only proven what we already know to be true. You have failed to prove that Christ being the foundation of the New Covenant also makes him the foundation of the Church, in reference to Matthew 16.

Matthew 16 declares unequivocally that Peter is the foundation of the Church. "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."
Or in Greek if you prefer: "κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς."
Literal translation: "You are rock and upon this rock I will build my church"

Christ thematically, linguistically, and actually declares Peter to be the foundation of the Church. He is the first Christian from which the Church, the followers of Christ will grow. Christ is not the Foundation of the Church, he is the Founder, the Head and the Church is his Bride.

Peter would condemn your church and preach against it on every occasion as would Christ or any of the Apostles.

Would he now? You know that for sure? You've asked him? and all the apostles? I thought your sect was against that sort of thing, praying to saints and all.

You know how I criticize you for "likening your-self as a prophet?" This is another example. You are claiming to speak for the Apostles, to know what they would do, and attempt to use that as an argument. Once again, you put yourself in the place of the Prophets. What hubris.

Under scrutiny your doctrine holds no water.

Problem is, you haven't scrutinized my doctrine. You've gone on a long winded tangent about something else, attempting to discredit such doctrine with contrived arguments and false equivalencies. You've failed to prove a correlation, but are dogmatically claiming the correlation to be true. Such a tactic won't work on me.

I apologize for the lateness of my response I have been very busy as of late.

No need to apologize, but I honestly I suggest you don't respond to the rest of the post. You've demonstrated you're not willing to listen or even have an argument in good faith with true Socratic dialogue. Instead you're ignoring the points I'm making and talking past them to make your own points without deference to what I'm actually saying to you. You're not addressing my points, you're just using them as a road map to organize what you want to say. You're preaching, you're not debating. This thread isn't the place for that.

[ThePeacekeepers]

I'm going to address one point first and then when I have the time, reply to the rest of your post.

I'll break it down for you like this.
Yahweh said there was to be a new covenant.
Jerimiah 31:31-34
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

This is here because this is the beginging and most crucial statement made showing there will be a new covenant made. Under this new covenant he will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more.

A cornerstone is Laid down, a tried stone, on which a new covenant will be made and the old will not stand.
Isaiah 28:14-19
14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.
18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.
19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.

It gives three main descriptions of the stone. It will be a foundation stone, a sure foundation. It is a tried stone. A precious corner stone.
The foundation stone of the new covenant is a precious corner stone which has been tried and will be a sure foundation.
In looking you will see, the cornerstone is the foundation of the church. The cornerstone is a tried stone on which a sure foundation of the church will be made.
2. Their covenant with death shall be disannulled and their agreement will hell shall not stand. It is the precious corner stone that will be the one to disannul this covenant with hell and create a new covenant.
Yahushua the Christ is the chief cornerstone, the stone on which Yahweh's church is founded.
Ephesians 2:19-22
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
The new covenant/Law will be made on the Chief corner stone. The doctrine of the apostles and the prophets are part of that foundation, but Christ is the Chief cornerstone on which the rest of the church is built, he is the bringer of the new covenant and without him there would be no disannulling of the old law. He is the beginning of the Church of the New testament.
Matt 16:17-18
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The rock he is speaking of is the rock spoken of by God on which a new covenant will be made, the cornerstone. The foundation of the new covenant which hell will not prevail against. He is the one who disannuls the old covenant with death.
The stone which the builder's refused is the cornerstone.
Psalm 118:22
22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
Who is the cornerstone on which the new covenant will be founded? The stone which the builders refused is the cornerstone.
Mark 12:10-11
10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
11 This was the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Same meaning as above.
Yahushua is the stone which the builder's refused.
Matt 21:41-46
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.
The stone which the builders rejected is the head stone of the corner or the cornerstone spoken of which will be the foundation of the New covenant/testament.
Acts 4:8-12
8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
9 If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
It clearly states that Christ is the stone which the builders refused the cornerstone. The cornerstone is the foundation of the Lord's church and the foundation of the New covenant.
1 Peter 2:4-10
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
Christ is a living stone disallowed of men but Chosen of God and Precious. Christ is the Chief corner stone elect and precious and we should believe on him.
Again it states that Christ is the stone the builders refused, and the cornerstone the Church is founded on.
Romans 9:31-33
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Christ again is said to be the stone laid down in Sion, the stumblingstone, the rock of offense.
Yahshua is the mediator of the new covenant/testament
Hebrews 12:23-24
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Yahshua is the mediator of the new covenant spoken of in Jeremiah and Isaiah and the foundation.
Hebrews 13:20-21
20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
The Lord's blood fulfilled the whole law of the Old testament and brought about the new.
Hebrews 9:14-15
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

He is the mediator of the new testament/covenant, that through his blood the old was fulfilled and the new was instated.
1 Timothy 2:3-6
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

He is the mediator of the new testament who gave himself over so that man might be saved through him.
Hebrews 8:4-13
4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


The new covenant is made through Christ showing that he is the bringer of the new testament and the precious stone/foundation spoken of in Isaiah and Jeremiah.

Jeremiah 28:16
Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Jeremiah 31:31-32
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

Hebrews 7:18-19
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
Hebrews 7:22-24
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
He was the surety of a better testament/covenant/law because the old law made nothing perfect.
Hebrews 12:2
2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Christ is the author and the finisher of our faith, he is the foundation of the Church of God, who died on the cross and sprinkled his blood on the alter in heaven fulfilling the old law and bringing about the new.
Matt 26:26-28
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Through the Blood of Christ the New testament/covenant is made.
Luke 22:19-20
19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Same as above.

Here's where your argument fails:
1. You're making a contrived argument that all stone metaphors in the Bible refer to the same stone. There is no such indication of this. Each metaphor of stone is referring to its own paradigm, as an idiomatic metaphor.

2. You're conflating two things, The Church and the New Covenant. While inherently and inseparably tied to one another, they are not the same thing. The Church is the Body of Believers. The Greek word from which we get the word Church is ἐκκλησία, which means an official assembly of people. The Church is the institutional assembly of believers, structured along the lines of Apostolic Succession. The Covenant is the promise made to this assembly. The nation of Israel was not the Old Covenant itself, they were the the beneficiaries of said covenant. A covenant is an agreement between two parties. The New Covenant is an agreement between God and the Church.

It is easy to see that by looking at the scripture and seeing what it has to say you will find that Christ is the Precious tried cornerstone that is laid down as a sure foundation on which the New covenant will be made

yes, yes it is. I don't know why you bothered to draw up that completely irrelevant map of scripture, there's not a Catholic alive that would claim that Christ is not the foundation on which the New Covenant sits, that Christ is the mediator reconciling man to God and that through him, through his sacrifice we have the Gospel and the promise of salvation and eternal life. No one is disputing this The argument is about who the Church, not the Covenant, is founded upon, which:

and God's Church will be built upon.

not nearly as easy to see that point. You've made no argument for this assertion, instead you've assumed this is the case by equating the Covenant and the Church as the same thing. As I said, this is why your argument fails.

No other stone besides the cornerstone/tried stone/precious stone/stone the builder's refused/foundation stone on which a sure foundation will be made: is mentioned.

This is a bold faced lie considering I directly commented on this in the post you're responding to, on a verse that you cited.

Ephesians 2:“20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets”"

We see a foundation of apostles and prophets directly referenced, and you tried to pretend that didn't exist. You lied.

By looking through scripture we find out who the stone spoken of in Isaiah is since he is all the things mentioned above.
Who is the stone the builder's refused? By looking at scripture we see that Christ is the stone the builder's refused.
Who is the cornerstone? It is easy to see that Christ is the cornerstone spoken of in Isaiah.
Who is the mediator/bringer of the new covenant spoken of in Isaiah and jeremiah? By looking at scripture we find that Christ is the mediator/ bringer of the new covenant /testament.

Again, no Catholic, or other Christian for that matter would dispute that Christ is the Mediator and the Foundation of the New Covenant. What you're not grasping is, that it's irrelevant to the discussion we're having.

Christ is the rock the church is founded upon, not peter as the catholic church falsely claims and you have stated.

You've not proven that, instead you've only proven what we already know to be true. You have failed to prove that Christ being the foundation of the New Covenant also makes him the foundation of the Church, in reference to Matthew 16.

Matthew 16 declares unequivocally that Peter is the foundation of the Church. "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."
Or in Greek if you prefer: "κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς."
Literal translation: "You are rock and upon this rock I will build my church"

Christ thematically, linguistically, and actually declares Peter to be the foundation of the Church. He is the first Christian from which the Church, the followers of Christ will grow. Christ is not the Foundation of the Church, he is the Founder, the Head and the Church is his Bride.

Peter would condemn your church and preach against it on every occasion as would Christ or any of the Apostles.

Would he now? You know that for sure? You've asked him? and all the apostles? I thought your sect was against that sort of thing, praying to saints and all.

You know how I criticize you for "likening your-self as a prophet?" This is another example. You are claiming to speak for the Apostles, to know what they would do, and attempt to use that as an argument. Once again, you put yourself in the place of the Prophets. What hubris.

Under scrutiny your doctrine holds no water.

Problem is, you haven't scrutinized my doctrine. You've gone on a long winded tangent about something else, attempting to discredit such doctrine with contrived arguments and false equivalencies. You've failed to prove a correlation, but are dogmatically claiming the correlation to be true. Such a tactic won't work on me.

I apologize for the lateness of my response I have been very busy as of late.

No need to apologize, but I honestly I suggest you don't respond to the rest of the post. You've demonstrated you're not willing to listen or even have an argument in good faith with true Socratic dialogue. Instead you're ignoring the points I'm making and talking past them to make your own points without deference to what I'm actually saying to you. You're not addressing my points, you're just using them as a road map to organize what you want to say. You're preaching, you're not debating. This thread isn't the place for that.

Not true. All stone metaphor's in the bible do not refer to Christ. The stone of Daniel cut out without human hands and The lively stones to name a few.
Christ is the foundation the beginning of the church without him there would be no Church.
It explicitly states in Ephesians that Christ is the Chief cornerstone. You know the one laid down in Zion by Yahweh for a sure foundation.
Yes the apostles doctrine and prophets are part of the foundation. But they are added onto the already existing foundation which is Christ the Chief cornerstone.
Yes Peter is part of the foundation of the Church but so is Paul and the other apostles and the prophets, and you know what I would actually be inclined to agree that after Christ peter was one of if not the first member of the Church. But again after Christ since he is the first member and is the sure foundation, without him there would be no church. Every single Christian church is founded on Christ, that's just a fact, so saying peter is the foundation really makes little to no sense.
Also no I didn't lie I wrote the first half of that two days ago and simply missed it when I came back to it today. Had I not I would have written the same thing I just wrote for it.

Yes Peter was one of if not the first rock added to the already present Cornerstone of the church but was not the first stone. Christ is the first stone of the church the Chief cornerstone laid down in Zion by God on which the Church is built.

If you remove the foundation from something then what is built upon it will crumble and fall.
Without Christ there would be no Christian Church, that's simple plain fact. Every founding belief in the Christian Faith is centered around Christ.
Without Peter and the doctrine he was given there would still be the church since we would still have the other apostles and Yahshua himself. The light given to him was indeed important as were the deeds done during by him during his lifetime, but without him there would still be a church through any of the other apostles.
So you tell me. Who sounds more like the foundation of the Church?

I address your points in a fair and pointed manner laying out in detail what it is I am saying and what the scripture I am presenting is saying. I don't address them in the manner you do since I am not proficient when it comes to computers, so while you might not always be able to see it I do address each of your points. Well those that have relevancy to the discussion that we are having anyway.

Honestly there is not much more to be said on this matter. There is no profit to be gained, only argument that will end the same way every time.
I am truly sorry for it turning out this way but I hope maybe you will see the light and the truth of the word of God.

I will respond to the rest of your previous post when I find the time, and hopefully there we may come to an agreement on at least one matter.

[Pasong Tirad]

[Gim]

Here's where your argument fails:
1. You're making a contrived argument that all stone metaphors in the Bible refer to the same stone. There is no such indication of this. Each metaphor of stone is referring to its own paradigm, as an idiomatic metaphor.

2. You're conflating two things, The Church and the New Covenant. While inherently and inseparably tied to one another, they are not the same thing. The Church is the Body of Believers. The Greek word from which we get the word Church is ἐκκλησία, which means an official assembly of people. The Church is the institutional assembly of believers, structured along the lines of Apostolic Succession. The Covenant is the promise made to this assembly. The nation of Israel was not the Old Covenant itself, they were the the beneficiaries of said covenant. A covenant is an agreement between two parties. The New Covenant is an agreement between God and the Church.



yes, yes it is. I don't know why you bothered to draw up that completely irrelevant map of scripture, there's not a Catholic alive that would claim that Christ is not the foundation on which the New Covenant sits, that Christ is the mediator reconciling man to God and that through him, through his sacrifice we have the Gospel and the promise of salvation and eternal life. No one is disputing this The argument is about who the Church, not the Covenant, is founded upon, which:




not nearly as easy to see that point. You've made no argument for this assertion, instead you've assumed this is the case by equating the Covenant and the Church as the same thing. As I said, this is why your argument fails.


This is a bold faced lie considering I directly commented on this in the post you're responding to, on a verse that you cited.

Ephesians 2:“20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets”"

We see a foundation of apostles and prophets directly referenced, and you tried to pretend that didn't exist. You lied.




Again, no Catholic, or other Christian for that matter would dispute that Christ is the Mediator and the Foundation of the New Covenant. What you're not grasping is, that it's irrelevant to the discussion we're having.



You've not proven that, instead you've only proven what we already know to be true. You have failed to prove that Christ being the foundation of the New Covenant also makes him the foundation of the Church, in reference to Matthew 16.

Matthew 16 declares unequivocally that Peter is the foundation of the Church. "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."
Or in Greek if you prefer: "κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς."
Literal translation: "You are rock and upon this rock I will build my church"

Christ thematically, linguistically, and actually declares Peter to be the foundation of the Church. He is the first Christian from which the Church, the followers of Christ will grow. Christ is not the Foundation of the Church, he is the Founder, the Head and the Church is his Bride.



Would he now? You know that for sure? You've asked him? and all the apostles? I thought your sect was against that sort of thing, praying to saints and all.

You know how I criticize you for "likening your-self as a prophet?" This is another example. You are claiming to speak for the Apostles, to know what they would do, and attempt to use that as an argument. Once again, you put yourself in the place of the Prophets. What hubris.


Problem is, you haven't scrutinized my doctrine. You've gone on a long winded tangent about something else, attempting to discredit such doctrine with contrived arguments and false equivalencies. You've failed to prove a correlation, but are dogmatically claiming the correlation to be true. Such a tactic won't work on me.





No need to apologize, but I honestly I suggest you don't respond to the rest of the post. You've demonstrated you're not willing to listen or even have an argument in good faith with true Socratic dialogue. Instead you're ignoring the points I'm making and talking past them to make your own points without deference to what I'm actually saying to you. You're not addressing my points, you're just using them as a road map to organize what you want to say. You're preaching, you're not debating. This thread isn't the place for that.

Not true. All stone metaphor's in the bible do not refer to Christ. The stone of Daniel cut out without human hands and The lively stones to name a few.
Christ is the foundation the beginning of the church without him there would be no Church.
It explicitly states in Ephesians that Christ is the Chief cornerstone. You know the one laid down in Zion by Yahweh for a sure foundation.
Yes the apostles doctrine and prophets are part of the foundation. But they are added onto the already existing foundation which is Christ the Chief cornerstone.
Yes Peter is part of the foundation of the Church but so is Paul and the other apostles and the prophets, and you know what I would actually be inclined to agree that after Christ peter was one of if not the first member of the Church. But again after Christ since he is the first member and is the sure foundation, without him there would be no church. Every single Christian church is founded on Christ, that's just a fact, so saying peter is the foundation really makes little to no sense.
Also no I didn't lie I wrote the first half of that two days ago and simply missed it when I came back to it today. Had I not I would have written the same thing I just wrote for it.

Yes Peter was one of if not the first rock added to the already present Cornerstone of the church but was not the first stone. Christ is the first stone of the church the Chief cornerstone laid down in Zion by God on which the Church is built.

If you remove the foundation from something then what is built upon it will crumble and fall.
Without Christ there would be no Christian Church, that's simple plain fact. Every founding belief in the Christian Faith is centered around Christ.
Without Peter and the doctrine he was given there would still be the church since we would still have the other apostles and Yahshua himself. The light given to him was indeed important as were the deeds done during by him during his lifetime, but without him there would still be a church through any of the other apostles.
So you tell me. Who sounds more like the foundation of the Church?

I address your points in a fair and pointed manner laying out in detail what it is I am saying and what the scripture I am presenting is saying. I don't address them in the manner you do since I am not proficient when it comes to computers, so while you might not always be able to see it I do address each of your points. Well those that have relevancy to the discussion that we are having anyway.

Honestly there is not much more to be said on this matter. There is no profit to be gained, only argument that will end the same way every time.
I am truly sorry for it turning out this way but I hope maybe you will see the light and the truth of the word of God.

I will respond to the rest of your previous post when I find the time, and hopefully there we may come to an agreement on at least one matter.

Hmm, that makes sense.

[Free Maronites]

Please, Gim, when making a single sentence comment, either only quote directly what you're agreeing with, or just replace their entire post with an abbreviation such as 'snip'.

[Gim]

Please, Gim, when making a single sentence comment, either only quote directly what you're agreeing with, or just replace their entire post with an abbreviation such as 'snip'.

[United Muscovite Nations]

(Image)

Dude, that's meta, well done.

[Dylar]

I was given the opportunity to skip my meteorology class to go serve the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Now I wonder if I really needed a note to mark my absence as an excused absence...

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I didn't even know Assumption of Mary was today...

[Dylar]

I didn't even know Assumption of Mary was today...

I only found out on Sunday when my parish priest asked for any of the Knights to volunteer serving the morning and evening masses today. I really wish I had a liturgical calendar in my possession.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I didn't even know Assumption of Mary was today...

I only found out on Sunday when my parish priest asked for any of the Knights to volunteer serving the morning and evening masses today. I really wish I had a liturgical calendar in my possession.

Ah. I found out from one of my friends on discord.

[Diopolis]

I didn't realize the Orthodox were such libertarians. Preservation is not inherent to the squabbling, such preservation can endure harmonious, unfractured Church.

Liturgical and Doctrinal traditionalism are every bit as important to the Catholics as they are the Orthodox. Our ideas on how that traditionalism is supposed to work however, is different than yours.

I realize I am throwing rocks from my glass parapet, the Catholic Church has just as many if not more factions as the Orthodox Church, and perhaps it's just my insiders perspective but despite these factions we still tend to be more unified than our Orthodox Bretheren.

You appear more unified because you have a central authority that forces the other factions (like the traditionalists) to shut up or be excommunicated.

That's not what happened. I've never heard of any traditionalists getting formally excommunicated.
The SSPX received a non-infallible ruling from the CDF(not a court- an internal affairs department) stating that five higher ups had been excommunicated for schism, but it was never a formal excommunication and they(and a significant portion of the traditionalist movement) claims that based on technicalities of canon law the excommunication was invalid. In any case, the excommunication is no longer in effect if it ever was.

Our bishops can complain about ecumenism, but when Cardinals question whether divorced couples should receive communion, they are stripped of their administrative positions.

That's not what happened either. Four cardinals sent a dubia to the pope. Three were retired, and one had been a political enemy of the pope for a long time. When he was moved to a less powerful position, it was more "straw that broke the camel's back" than "you questioned the pope. Now you no longer have a position."

[Diopolis]

I have no problem with it until the money used for ornate vestments and the like gets in the way of charity. Maintaining, restoring, repairing old decorations and vestments, relics and whatnot are of course necessary - but trying to get even more bling with a church (such as what happened with the church where I was baptised)? Unnecessary, especially when the area surrounding the church is knee-deep in poverty.

I can agree with that; however, with the obvious exception of the Papal tiara, I think people really overestimate how expensive those ornate things are. Vestments can be made by the Church itself, or by companies owned by the Church (in the same way that the Church owns companies the make the wine for communion), and a lot can be done to make a church building beautiful without going too expensive. Moreover, I think you could get people to donate a lot when they go on pilgrimages.

But I definitely get that concern, and I think one way to counteract that, could be to do something sort of like the Russian and Romanian Churches are doing, and that's to build things like homeless shelters as a part of the complexes (not the same building) as churches.

Added to that, people drastically underestimate how expensive the cheap looking stuff is. Not-so fancy but nice looking vestments aren't much more than the sort of cheap looking roman vestments currently in use. Now, there are excesses like the FSSP's $15,000 ordination vestments, but those are really fancy, for special occasions, and only owned by one part of a large organization.
Oh, and don't give me any of that "it's too expensive" junk when you're prepared to blow several times that amount of money on wall-hangings in the parish hall. I'll never understand how some parishes will run multi-million dollar building campaigns for their office space, rectories, cafeterias, etc but still object to having a beautiful sanctuary.

On that topic, though, a question for traditional Catholics or Catholics in general: Why do traditionalist Catholics feel the Tridentine Mass needs to be in Latin? What would be the problem translating it into the lingua franca?

Latin is the lingua franca. It's the lingua franca because it's always been. Added to that are several theological reasons that are individually pretty weak, but combine much more effectively:
1)Latin is a metaphorical veil. It emphasizes that the mass is not of this world because it is currently used by no one.
2)The Latin rite does not do ethnic churches as such. Every member of the church is supposed to worship at mass in the same language rather than a few hundred vernaculars.
3)Latin, Greek, and Hebrew are seen as sanctified languages because they were used to proclaim Jesus king of the jews at the crucifixion. As such, the tridentine mass is in those languages(there are a few words of Greek and Hebrew here and there).