[kosta50]

You're a funny guy. Of course Christ didn't exalt Himself. God the Father anointed Him as the High Priest

God in the role of the Father anointed HImself in the role of the Son? Why would God anoint himself?

he was also glorified as such by the Apostles.

He was exalted on Mt. Tabor, when he was transfigured. This is when the three disciples learned that the man they walked with was God. And they were prohibited from telling others. None, save for John, whose writings are in the NT witnesses Christ as God, not even "Peter."

When Christ resurrected he said they couldn't touch him because he wasn't glorified yet. So, when was he "glorified" by the Apostles? In Matthew 28:17 it says of the eleven disciples who received his Great Commission, some revered him, but others STILL doubted him as he was about to ascend through the clouds.

Peter did, 1Pe 2:3-7

Oh, I knew you would bring up "Peter." Because that's the only reference to believers being a "hoy priesthood." Trouble is, Christ said nothing even remotely similar, and is in fact not in harmony with what the Gospels tell us.

We are also told that not all are appointed in the Church to be apostles, prophets and teachers (1 Cor 12;28 and Eph 4:11). Paul calls himself a priest, but he doesn't call others priests. And Christ simply promised the apostles to be ones who will judge the 12 tribes of Israel with him.

By all accounts, 1 Peter was not written by Peter, but it does say very important things for the Church—it buries the hatchet between Paul and Peter, and that's what the Church Fathers liked about it. It was an important and necessary piece of writing that would health their rift.

Even if Peter did write it, Peter is no Christ.

So also Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee.

Yeah, well, this just goes to show that various heretical groups get their stuff straight from the Bible! John 1 tells us that the Word was with God and was God at the origin (arche, origin; not clear what origin he is talking about, but it sounds mysterious!).

He was begotten eternally, before ages, in his divine nature and he was conceived at the Annunciation in his human nature, and was brought forth by the Virgin.

If Hebrews is correct and God had begotten Jesus as his Son on the day he was baptized, that means Jesus was not the son of God until that day; this is an ancient heresy known as Adoptionism and it's right in the New Testament!

Bottom line is: the Church never taught that God the Father had begotten Jesus on the day when he was baptized. We can argue why this is so, but obviously that part is not what the Church believed or else it would have taught it. Obviously, the Church kept the whole book of Hebrews because it contained some "stuff" the Church deemed necessary for us to know.

[Cvengr]

Even if Peter did write it, Peter is no Christ.

I see, so the Church really isn't built upon Peter or his successors.