ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

I Don't Believe In Catholic Ways

If I'm in a Catholic church now, and I no longer believe in the Catholic ways, but I still believe in Jesus, what information is there for me to learn the whole truth. Can I stay in the Catholic Church. If not, where do I go?

Join Our Free Chat and Take The False Traditions Bible Quiz
 ---Catholic on 3/10/07
     Helpful Blog Vote (21)

Post a New Blog

The post from Frances on 3/25 provides the best insight ...God calls people to come out of Babylon (mystery) ...Pray often for Gods Holy Spirit guidance reading Gods Truth seperating from religion

God commanded people of like mind to assemble but Christ KNEW His Church would be the little persecuted flock ...not always possible to assemble when His flock is little (Luke 12:32)

Christ baptized many hundreds of thousands during his ministry ...remember only 120 were left at his resurrection
---Rhonda on 3/25/08

THANK YOU DAN-your affermation is like a document.I also attest to what it is to be In His Holy Grace would that others may expetience the peace and joy that acompanies that heavenly experience here on Earth.AMEN.
---Emcee on 3/25/08

AlanofUK you are clearly no historian, just a dissembler of information. Ann Boleyn was killed by the Jesuits, who wanted her punished for all she did on behalf of Christianity in England. Henry V111 was just a handy agent to use, a puppet you could say. He was not a nice guy. However God used him to produce Elizabeth 1, and save the Protestants from the Spanish, Jesuits attack.
---frances008 on 3/25/08

I have been a Catholic all my life - Ihave attended daily Mass for over sixty years - If i died today I would go to Heaven - If you are thinking of leaving the CATHOLIC CHURCH please dont - you should go to confession so you can receive Jesus personaly - then you can give your life to Christ Jesus - and you can live in the world but not of the world -It will not be easy at first but you can do it---GOD LOVE YOU- DAN
---dan8483 on 3/25/08

Frances ... Anne Boleyn was nothing to do with gettingt the Bible into English, and her death was not related to that either
---alan_of_UK on 3/25/08

Anne Boleyn sacrificed her life to the cause of getting the Bible delivered to the population of England in English. Many people lost their lives in this cause. The Vatican did everything it could to prevent them.
---frances008 on 3/25/08

It was the RCC that published the Bible first in German, BEFORE Luther did it. The RCC was first in publishing the Bible in EVERY language throughout Europe. Prior to that, illiteracy ran rampant in Europe. Everyone who could read, could read Latin, hence the Bible was published in Latin throughout Europe for centuries prior to that.
---Greyrider on 3/25/08

When the Bible was first printed in Europe the Reformation began. But the Protestants were still under the influence of Catholicism. Still are. You cannot put new wine into old wine skins. Any Church that is any denomination is at risk of being undermined by the devil. The only answer is to just be a Christian and read the Bible and keep the Commandments of the Old and New Testament as far as you can. Start your own house church.
---frances008 on 3/25/08

Alan of UK ::Yes. Thank you my Friend.Sheila may also be long gone.
---Emcee on 3/24/08

Alan of UK ::Yes. Thank you my Friend.Sheila may also be long gone.
---Emcee on 3/24/08

to the original person who posted the question, you may want to read "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" by Karl Keating. I used to teach people that Catholics were going to hell until I read that book. It started my Scripture-based journey into the RCC. If you live in America, you are probably surrounded by Catholics (maybe even priests) who do not share the REAL teachings of the RCC. That book is a real eye opener.
---Greyrider on 3/24/08

Emcee ... That post fom Shiela is a year old, but has been redated when the blog has been resurrected
---alan_of_UK on 3/24/08

Sheila:: The last time I addressed you was in 13/4/2007 I believe much water has flowed under the bridge of Thought, maybe you can refresh My Memory, seeing as yours is the First Post after nearly a year.
---Emcee on 3/23/08

Emcee -Again I ask what question was it that you asked me that I didn't answer?

What is your point as to whether something is a prelude to sin? That doesn't mean sin will happen, so what's your point?

What difference does the world and statistics mean when we're not supposed to be of the world anyway?
---Sheila on 3/23/08

Lorr: My mistake. Dead Sea Scrolls had the Old Testament. Analysis shows they date much earlier than texts in the Apocryphal Catholic Canon of the 14th century that added some 30 extra Chapters to the Book of Daniel.

Again the Catholic Church originally had sound doctrine. When she placed traditions of men above Scripture many ungodly practices entered her and now she strains gnats, adds fake scripture to bible canons, assumes inspired aramaic to elevate a pebble, and refuses to repent.
---TS on 4/19/07

TS, the Dead Sea Scrolls had a cave with all of the canon contained within it - but this cave included all of the Deuterocanonical books making for about 46 OT books. All but one of these additional books was in Hebrew.

Further, the Latin Vulgate which served as the official Bible of the Catholic Church for several centuries (remember the Reformation issue on Latin), contained 46 OT books and 27 NT books - so history and archeology say you are wrong.
---lorra8574 on 4/19/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Health Treatments

Mima-*If you have received Jesus Christ as your personal savior by asking him into your heart your continuing to attend the Catholic Church is a poor witness for your Christianity.*
There's NO church of our making without error.We're ALL sinful&make mistakes in translation cuz of our sinful nature to believe what we want to believe.So,RCCprobably interprets some things better than other churches&certainly vice versa.
Go to the church that has you seeking to get closer to God thru Jesus.
---Sheila on 4/19/07

lorra: Nice try. Papias is no substitute for the Apostles and you have no record that they ever met. Or that Papias is trustworthy.

You speculate that changes were made early and there is no evidence to support that.
---TS on 4/19/07

lorra: Where is the Aramaic & Hebrew Mathew translations that date before the 1st Century AD? Exactly...They do not exist.

Is it a Translation error that has Catholics bow to Statues of dead Apostles and kiss them so much in the vatican that the toes wear off?

Pray to mary for intercession instead of Jesus? Bow to a Pope and call a priest Father and pope Holy Father? Give me a break. Straining gnats to swallow camels.
---TS on 4/19/07

Sheila P4: John's Gospel account was written in Greek first, Matthew's account was translated into Greek.

Matthew 2:23 The OT does not say that the Messiah will come from Nazareth, the correct prophecy is from Isaiah 4:2; 11:2,10, which is also echoed by Paul in Romans 15:12. The word in Matthew in Hebrew was "netser" (as found in Isa 11:2) meaning that Jesus would sprout or be a shoot from the root of Jesse, not be a resident of Nazareth.
---lorra8574 on 4/19/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Affiliate Program

Sheila P5 The Greek translator for Matthew make a mistake when he translated netser as Nazorean (sound alikes are not the same thing). Jerome noticed this mistake when comparing the Hebrew manuscript with its later Greek counterpart. But, it was so engrained that he commented on it, but did not change the text in the Bible. The fact that Jesus does come from Jesse's line is established in the NT. And we have the OT so we know that Messiah was NOT supposed to be from Nazareth, but Bethlehem.
---lorra8574 on 4/19/07

If you have received Jesus Christ as your personal savior by asking him into your heart your continuing to attend the Catholic Church is a poor witness for your Christianity.
---Mima on 4/19/07

Sheila, Matthew was a Jewish scribe who served as a Tax Collector (Tax Collectors are required to be able to keep records). He would have been versed in both Koine Greek and in Hebrew. However, Jews in the Palestine region strongly preferred Hebrew or Aramaic and often rejected the Greek, which is why your OT is from the Hebrew Canon and not the Alexandrian Canon used by the Diaspora Jews and Gentile Christians who did speak Greek as their dominant language.
---lorra8574 on 4/19/07

grace: Study the Scriptures and do what they say not what any Man says. I do note that the King James Bible is the closest to the Masaoric Texts verified by the Dead Sea Scrolls. KJV contians 66 Books. A Catholic Bible has 72 Books...6 Added in the 15th century against the advice of the Chief Vatican Historian. Search for Chirst in the 66, you will find Him and turn from all error you uncover.
---TS on 4/19/07

Send a Free Smiles & Hugs Ecard

Sheila P2: Papias was not an apostle but unlike TS, he was there to meet the Apostles and was taught by them. He would know if the gospel was in Hebrew or Greek when it was first written. Further you can compare Matthew with Paul's Epistles and John's Gospel which is known to have been written later.
---lorra8574 on 4/19/07

Sheila P3: Paul often refers to Simon-Peter as Cephas (see 1 Cor and Gal), even when writing in Greek because that is what ALL the Jewish Christians called him, because that is what Jesus named him. Matthew does not use Cephas anywhere because the whole gospel was translated into Greek, including Peter's new name. Now John's Gospel does mention Peter being named Cephas and then translates it for us as Petros so that we would know that both were the same person.
---lorra8574 on 4/19/07

grace3869 said: There is no reason why you can't continue to worship Jesus in the Catholic church while you search for more meaning.
NO reason? Are you sure? Think hard now. Come on, I know you can do it. If a person is "worshipping Jesus" why do they have to search for more meaning somewhere else? HELLO? I know you know the answer to this.
---SeekerofHim on 4/19/07

Lorr: Papias, is not an Apostle. If John, Mathew, Mark, Luke had said that it would have weight. Revisionist History that the Vatican is prone to is no substitute for the Cannon of 66 Books blessed by John. The last remaining Apostle in 1st Century AD.
---TS on 4/19/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts

TS-Yes, I think I made a mistake to be confident that the gospels were first written in Aramaic, and not Greek.That seems logical it'd be in Aramaic--but reality teaches us that logical doesn't make it true.I've read evidence that says as you did that Mt.16:18 was first in Greek.I tried posting that evidence,but it didn't post.Sorry.
---Sheila on 4/19/07

Lorra85741Co 3:10-11"According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder,I have laid the foundation,&another buildeth thereon.But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.&Eph.2:20 doesn't say the apostles&prophets are built on Peter's foundation over Christ the cornerstone.Peter is just one among those apostles&prophets.
---Sheila on 4/19/07

TS, Papias wrote that Matthew recorded the Oracles of the Lord in Hebrew (AKA Gospel). And Jerome saw the original Hebrew manuscript for Matthew before it was destroyed in the Alexandrian library (when the library itself was destroyed). Paul's letter to the Hebrews was also written in either Hebrew or Aramaic (the title refers to the people not the language). This also is recorded, but I think that not all early Greek Christians were able to tell Hebrew from Aramaic.
---lorra8574 on 4/19/07

TS, P2 it may also interest you to know that very few original manuscripts from the Bible date that early. We are lucky to have the Dead Sea Scrolls for the OT, but typically papyrus does not last very long and documents had to be continuously recopied onto new scrolls to be preserved. Sorry but none of the original NT manuscripts exist today in any language.
---lorra8574 on 4/19/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Acne Treatment

Shiela: There is absolutely no evidence to support that the Gospels were written in Aramaic. Oldest manuscripts date to the time of John and are written in Greek. Greek was the language of the Grecian Empire that held rule over Jerusalem for a century prior to the Roman occupation in Jesus' day.

Some folks may have spoke aramaic and greek but the Gospels were written in Greek. You find no aramaic manuscripts that date contemporary or prior to the Greek Manuscripts.
---TS on 4/18/07

Also why would Jesus use the feminine form "Petra" when refering to a man. The masculine of petra is "Petros".
Just before the Peter-Petros statement Jesus singles out Peter favourably for recognizing that He (Jesus) is The Christ, and just after that: the keys of Heaven and binding statement. Why would Jesus, in the middle of this discourse, suddenly make a non-sensical reference to a rock. It is only non-sensical if you take it out of Peter-the-rock context.
---Ed on 4/18/07

TS-I'm quite confident that the gospels were first written in Aramaic, and not Greek. I had just forgotten the obvious that the gospels would have been written in Aramaic.
---Sheila on 4/17/07

TS-I'm sorry I take that back.Here's something that says original text was in Greek:(In my next post)
---Sheila on 4/17/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Bad Credit Loans

Sheila, most of the NT was written in Greek because most of the early Christians spoke Greek not Aramaic. The very earliest Christians were Jews and most of them did speak predominantly Aramaic which is why Jesus preached to them in that language.
---lorra8574 on 4/17/07

Sheila p2: Once Christianity spread beyond the local Jews of Palestine, the early Christians used the Septuagint text of the OT, because it was in Greek and they could understand it, by this time all of the NT texts were in Greek, including the two that were first written in Hebrew or possibly Aramaic. Early Greek Christians of Gentile origin really couldn't tell Hebrew from Aramaic, and may have mislabelled the written language for Matthew and Hebrews.
---lorra8574 on 4/17/07


You infer, incorrectly, scholarly infallability in your remark.

Which Greek do you refer to ? Classical attic or the Koine dialect ? In the latter petros and petra have the same meaning.

Also. Even if it is classical attic (and it could easily be Koine dialect ..) you miss, also:

1. the play on words by Our Lord
2. the words in Aramaic would have been the same.
---Ed on 4/17/07

1. *Matthew was originally written in Hebrew not Greek. It was translated later. And we know what Jesus called Peter because Paul preserves it for us in his divinely inspired epistles - Cephas is Aramaic (Kephas in Hebrew).
---lorra8574 on 4/17/07*

Even Baptist Hebrew scholar David Biven says that Jesus made Peter the rock of the church.

Biven writes: In favor of petra being a reference to Peter...

---augusta on 4/17/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Bankruptcy

2." 1) Jesus hinted at the Abraham-petra midrash. Since this midrash speaks of God finding a man (Abraham) on whom he could build, then Jesus was probably hinting that he had found a man like Abraham (i.e., Peter) on whom he could build. 2) In Mt. 16:19, Jesus invests Peter with great authority in the kingdom of Heaven giving Peter the "keys of the kingdom of Heaven." We learn from the book of Acts that Peter was indeed the leader and spokesman of the early church."
---augusta on 4/17/07

TS you are being sneaky and relying upon assumptions not born out by the facts. Matthew was originally written in Hebrew not Greek. It was translated later. And we know what Jesus called Peter because Paul preserves it for us in his divinely inspired epistles - Cephas is Aramaic (Kephas in Hebrew).
---lorra8574 on 4/17/07

P2 John wrote his divinely inspired gospel later than Paul's epistles which is why he wrote in John 1:42 that Simon was called Cephas, and then clarified it by identifying its Greek counterpart - Petros. So that they would know that Petros and Cephas were the same person. Paul used both versions.
---lorra8574 on 4/17/07

TS P3 Do not take my word for it, try to find Petros in any ancient Greek manuscript where it does NOT connect with Peter in any way. You will NOT find it because it is not a Greek word, it is a masculinization of a feminine noun which is unusual, but necessary in this case. Same holds true in Latin.

TS, I might be subtle sometimes, but at least I am not being deceiptful.
---lorra8574 on 4/17/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Cash Advance

Shiela: Scriptures were Written in Greek Under Inspiration...not Aramaic. Aramaic used only when a Greek word could not supply the correct salt.

Peter in Greek is a pebble, not a Rock.

"You are a pebble" then referring to Himself "On this Rock I will build My Church."

Do not be fooled by the subtlety.
Oldest Manuscripts date to 1st Centry AD, the time of John (living Apostle); they are written predominantly in Greek. Inspiration put Greek there for a reason.
---TS on 4/17/07

Dear Mary, If you read what I wrote, I didn't say I hated anyone. I hate the Catholic church doctrine because it is not in God's will. They teach a little Jesus, (15 minutes on the gospel) and most of the rest is man made ritual. If you don't know this, you need to be born again. Some of my own family is Catholic but they are slowly leaving. What you don't realize Mary, is that a lot of the RCC teaching is what God hates, read your Bible. They need God's Spirit. There is a difference. I do pray for them.
---Pete on 4/16/07

Ashley, the Beast was the Emperor of Rome, Babylon was the City of Rome (which is not Vatican City), the Whore of Babylon was Jerusalem - compare with Ezekiel 16 and Luke 13:34. Note that the Jews used the Romans to have Jesus executed.

What you do not seem to realize is that the Book of Revelations is written in a standard apocolyptic code, EVERY Jew and Christian of that ERA knew exactly what it meant.
---lorra8574 on 4/16/07

Ashley P2: It was intended to confound the pagan ROMANS, not us Christians. Unfortunately for you, the code is kept separately from the scriptures, in order to keep the secret from the ENEMIES of us Christians.
---lorra8574 on 4/16/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Counseling

I will pray for you. You must not hate, it just isn't what God has in mind for you. Catholics are Christ loving people. There are many Catholic Churches where they have Bible study and are searching for the truth. I am no longer a practicing Catholic but I still love my family and friends who worship in the Catholic Church and I keep them in my prayers always.
---marya3575 on 4/16/07

God called me out of the Catholic Church over 20 years ago. After seeing these blogs, I really hate that Church doctrine. It just reminds me why God called me out of there and into a good Bible based Christian Church.
---Pete on 4/16/07

Thanks Sheila and yes 1 Cor 10:4 really is referring to Christ, not Peter. Jesus Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church and always has been. He is our High Priest and King, as well as the perfect Victim who died for our sins.

Metaphors can change and be reused for any purpose. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus put Himself as the Master Builder and He laid Peter as rock upon which Jesus would build His Church. This does not mean that we do not rely upon Jesus as the Rock of our salvation.
---lorra8574 on 4/16/07

Catholic who wrote this post, I'm glad that you still believe in Jesus. I too was a Catholic, and I know that I know that I know, that the Catholic Church is made up of mostly man made lies, mixed with some Christianity. God called me out of there. Being a Born Again Christian, I could never go back to all that idolatry. I will not tell you what to do, but seek God until He shows you. God bless you.
---X_Catholic on 4/16/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Relief

Food for thought: read Rev 17: 1-18 in the KJV of the bible. costly apparal, praying to saints, Vatican city, priests and nuns, gold statues, idolatry. Rejecting truths found in the bible. sounds like the catholic church to perfection. I know many will deny this chapter, but it is quite interesting. Just food for thought. That is said in the bible, not of me. Don't shoot the messenger for stating facts.
---ashley on 4/16/07

(SOME) Catholics would argue that "Protestants" are a rag bag of different beliefs, rejecting the authority that Jesus granted to St Peter, introducing such terrible heresies as Calvinistic pre-destination, believing that faith alone, as opposed to faith and compassion, is sufficient, and so on.
My view is that both are imperfect but agree on the core beliefs: that Jesus is the Saviour, belief in the Trinity, Love your God and neighbour (and a lot more besides).
---Ed on 4/16/07

Catholic ways: Prayers to Mary and the saints. prayers for the dead, Purgatory, praying the Rosary, lighting candles for prayers, sacrifice of the mass, sacraments, believing the wafer is the body and blood of Christ, repetitious prayers, office of Pope, Catechism, statutes, etc. These are Pagan practices God hates. Read any Bible and it will show you, even the Catholic Bible. I got out of the Catholic Church and I will never return, even though I have been invited back. I took Jesus up on His invitation.
---Len on 4/16/07

I don't believe in Catholic ways. Idolatry abounds there, and Catholics are being fooled by the millions. Most are not saved, but thet think they are. Very sad.
---Jim on 4/16/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Settlement

Lorra8574- In light of Psa 18:31 "For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?" --it doesn't make sense to me Peter is what the church is built upon.Eph2:20 sounds as though Peter is a piece of the foundation with Jesus as the cornerstone &equally in that foundation with Peter are the apostles and prophets.

But you've given me something to think upon. God bless!
---Sheila on 4/15/07

Lorra8574-Thank you! "In Aramaic, Jesus said "You are Peter (Kephas) and upon this rock (kephas)" I had heard about this before,&I had forgotten about it.As I see it,it was wrong for me to take the translation from the Greek cuz that's skewed.Surely 1Co.10:4 the rock isn't Peter,but I think that was written in Greek.
---Sheila on 4/15/07

Jay, I think an apology to Lorra will be in order. I find it rude for you to tell her she's lying when she had been very prudent and substantiated her statements with scriptures.

She's well learned and you might do yourself a favor by "listening" to what she is saying.
---Caring on 4/15/07

Peter, study Greek, "petros" does not exist as a word in Greek except as the proper name which we know as Peter. I have confirmed this for myself, I demand that you do the same before you challenge me with anything so foolish. The same occurs in the Latin, petram is the feminine nown for rock, but when used for Peter, it is correctly modified to the masculine form which is Petrus; however, except as a proper name which you know as Peter, it does not exist as a word in Latin either.
---lorra8574 on 4/15/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Distance Learning

Peter, If your Protestant biased dictionary says otherwise, go to the ancient texts and find ANY use of the word petros that is not connected to Peter. I did this and found not one single example, in any Greek text, inside or outside of the Bible. John 1:42, is sometimes incorrectly translated as stone; however this Petros is connected to Peter and was only put in to show that Petros and Cephas were the same person.
---lorra8574 on 4/15/07

Sheila, 4073 was specially created to deal with the masculine form of the feminine noun identified as 4074. Petros is not a Greek word at all, it is only the masculinization of the feminine noun Petra. If you were switch to a language where the word for rock was already a masculine noun, you would see that the words do not change at all.

Go to the Unbound Bible and check Matthew 16:18 and John 1:42 and you will see that the word in every place is pierre which means rock.
---lorra8574 on 4/15/07

Shiela P2: I thank you for not assuming that I was a liar, but I am also not mistaken. I have an interest in historical linguistics and have taken a great deal of time to study this. The same thing occurs in Latin as well, yet the word used for Peter, Petrus, also is NOT a latin word other than the proper name for Peter.

Check this out for yourself. You can search these things out on-line. Search for petros, see if you can find any example that is not connected to Peter.
---lorra8574 on 4/15/07

Sheila, P2: Jesus laid Peter as the Foundation for His Church. Note that in the scriptures there are frequent references for building components in connection to Christ's followers. Jesus put himself in the most important position - not the foundation stone, but the cornerstone Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1 Peter 2:6; Ephesians 2:20.
---lorra8574 on 4/15/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Education

Unless you have leadership in this world then you have chaos.
Every family has a leader. It doesn't mean that the Father-figure is superior than the the rest of the family.
Protestants have leaders. Just as the Catholic Church has a leader in the Pope. Armies have leaders. Schools have leaders. Businesses have leaders. Charities have leaders.
We can't all know everything. The Pastor / Bishop offers a certain form of direction: we all need.
God works through others as much as ourselves.
---Ed on 4/15/07

Are people jealous of the authority of the Pope ? Just as we can be jealous of the gifts of other people i.e: intelligence, good at arts, charismatic speaker, wise .. and so on.
We all have different gifts. Gifts that make up one Christian family. Leadership is one such gift. The Pope isn't better than us. He is just different with a unique gift from God: to direct the Church here on earth.
If you don't believe in Church authority then where do you stop: absolutely no bishops, pastors ..
---Ed on 4/15/07

Jay-I hope I'm right in thinking that Lorra is NOT lying.She may have said something she thinks is true,but it's not.But that's not a lie, it's a mistake.A lie has to be intentional.Actually I don't see anything false in her 4-13-2007 post.But "Peter was laid upon the bedrock which is Christ"implies Peter is the foundation of everyone else&that's not true.But I'm not sure that's what she was implying.God bless!
---Sheila on 4/15/07

Peter: Petros - little stone. Not the Rock of our salvation, which is Jesus Christ the Lord.
---Peter on 4/14/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans

Lorra, you lie.
---Jay on 4/14/07

Lorra8574-*Peter's very name means Rock...*

PLEASE look at the Greek or Strong's numbers.

The word "Peter" and the word "Rock" in that verse are NOT the same thing.Peter is 4074,Rock is 4073.You think Peter is referring to himself in 1Pe.2:8 for the word rock#4073?Or Paul referring to him in,1Co.10:4 for the word Rock#4073?

Psa 18:31 "For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?"
---Sheila on 4/14/07

Lorra8574 - God says in His Word in 1 Corinthians 10:4 that "..and that Rock was Christ". Are you saying that God is a liar?
---Helen_5378 on 4/14/07

On whom the Church was founded:
The Apostle Peter himself explained in the Bible on whom the church was founded. He said that Jesus was the cornerstone: "This Jesus is the stone rejected by you the builders which has become the cornerstone. There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we are to be saved (Acts 4:11-12).
---John_David on 4/14/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates

Sheila, Peter's very name means Rock, he was the first person in History, in any language to have the name Rock. And Jesus gave it to him, not to exalt Peter above Himself, but because Jesus was building a new Temple which is His body. Christ started this construction with Peter, and added to it with all of us. Peter was laid upon the bedrock which is Christ. Jesus then strengthened him, and Jesus asked Peter to take on the role of Shepherd for Christ's flock - In the scriptures.
---lorra8574 on 4/13/07

Emcee-Christ is greater than Peter &He is our Rock.Who would want to tear down this Edifice?Satan would want a man exalted instead of Christ& not the other way around.

Anyone who has heard&accepted the gospel&builds upon Chirst without knowing a word about Peter,is NOT an offspring of Satan.Please don't ever imply that again.

What question was it of yours from before that I had not answered?
---Sheila on 4/13/07

Emcee-*You have to make a decision Jesus is the cornerstone Or The Rock.*

No.It's Truth& that's not "choice."Jesus IS the chief corner stone(Eph2:20),the spiritual Rock(1Co.10:4Strong's no. show this as the same rock in Mt.16.18)).YHWH is the Rock(2Sa 22:47,Ps18:31).

You can ignore true meaning of words revealed in Greek&believe twisted scripture.But Peter is NOT the rock.But I don't think you're an offspring of Satan for your mistake.You can't change Truth.
---Sheila on 4/13/07

Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.