Replies

Let’s take a close look at Matt. 16:18. The Lord is speaking directly TO Peter throughout the verse, even when he mentions ‘and upon this rock I will build my church’. For the Lord to speak directly to Peter throughout, you have to accept that the he is first addressing him, then addressing his revelation from God: ‘and upon this rock I will build my church. Of course, that harmonizes nicely with Eph. 2:20 and 1 Peter 2:6 and 7, that clearly declare Jesus Christ as the chief corner stone. Now, the way you RCs interpret Matt. 16;18, you have the Lord addressing Peter directly, then indirectly, as though he has turned away from Peter, and is saying to others that Peter is the rock on which he will build his church. That is some serious sentence manipulation/mutilation, take your pick.

This is an easy one. Jesus changed Peter's name from Simon to "Peter" in the Greek and "Cephus" in the original Aramaic. Both these terms "peter" and "cephus" refer to a kind of rock which is known in English as "saltpeter." So "Peter" definitely means "rock" in the literal sense. The only plausible explanation for Jesus' choice of this name is His later use of the term "Rock" to describe Peter's role in the hierarchical structure of His Church.

Mother of God- unscriptural; why because God the Father wasn’t the ‘father’ of God. The scriptures show that Jesus Christ is never referred to as ‘God the Son’, always the ‘Son of God’. There is a reason for that. God did not ‘father’ more Spirit; he ‘fathered’ a man (with a soul) to dwell in. Jesus Christ himself declared; “the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works”. John 14:10

Wow, you do not believe in the Trinity? We are really starting at square one. At the start of John's Gospel, we find that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Several lines later, it says "And the Word was made flesh." Obviously these passages describe Jesus Christ, Second Person of the Trinity, who received a fully human nature alongside His divine nature at the time of His birth to His Mother, the Virgin Mary. Jesus Christ is God and therefore His mother is the Mother of God. If we become adoptive sons of the Father, then we become not only the sons, but the brothers of God. Quite a privilege!

You still aren’t addressing your interpretation. For your concept to make sense, you have the Lord addressing Peter directly, then indirectly in the same sentence, which makes no sense. The Lord is the chief corner stone of the church. Peter is part of the ‘foundation’.

**”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”**

Are you, and your word, are two separate and distinct persons? Paul said that God was manifest IN the flesh. 1Tim. 3:16. And the man (Christ) died. God doesn’t die. God isn’t even a little bit weak. I pointed out how the Christ said that the “Father that dwelleth IN me HE doeth the works”.

Peter understood all this. That’s why he baptized in the name of Jesus; as did Philip the evangelist, Paul, etc.

**Jesus Christ, Second Person of the Trinity, who received a fully human nature alongside His divine nature at the time of His birth to His Mother, the Virgin Mary.**

The Christ received no divine attributes from Mary whatsoever. She didn’t even have a hand in making his soul. She was used to help make the body for the soul, AND the Spirit of God, to dwell in. That’s Bible, man, not carnal man’s reasoning about birth.

The man Christ said, “I can of mine own self do nothing..” John 5:30
The Spirit of God, speaking through the Christ told the scribes, “before Abraham was, I am”. John 8:58

The dual nature is: the Father is Spirit; and the Son is flesh (with a soul).