​​Timing is Everything- Really?...

Putting eternity, heaven and hell into perspective (1 Corinthians 2:9-13; Revelation 20:7-15; 21:1-4), as a real estate agent I would say location, location, location. Though He owns every bit of real estate in the universe and is not an agent, His message in part says just that. Also, if not even Jesus and only the Father in heaven knows when time ends, all the timepieces from beginning to end, Swiss or otherwise, won't help you and probably will get you all wound up (unless you're digital of course). Ignoring God's Word, which isn't bound or wound by time, is unfortunately the best of the worst ways to lose track of it. Time exists in this dimension and universe only and will not last a 'zeptosecond' more or less than He intends,  more or less. We really don't start living until time stops for each of us individually or collectively as a whole. God determines our time here and our eternity there. For our part we are all on the way to eternity. You need to think-location, location, location. Great motivation- no speech needed

Where we go in eternity for eternity depends on what we do here. We're just strangers passing through so best to have your 'ticket and papers' ready and in proper order, in addition to your passport, who is Christ (Ephesians 2:18-22). So, if you are expecting something more or less, don't hold your breath. Self-absorbed, whether the former or the latter, whether wittingly or unwittingly, as time passes them by they don't hear the 'tic' for all their own 'toc'.

Time isn't ours and certainly not ours to waste. We just treat it like it is. We need to make the most of our opportunities. Contrary to the Rolling Stones, 'Time Is Not On My Side', yours or anybody's in the here and now and depending upon where you end up for eternity may not be then either.

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them; 8 for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light 9 (for the fruit of the Light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), 10 trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; 12 for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret. 13 But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light. 14 For this reason it says, 

Awake, sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.

15 Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, 16 making the most of your time, because the days are evil. 17 So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. Ephesians 5:6-18, NASU

God-breathed scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17) says the Rock was Christ. Who are you going to believe? God or 'flesh and blood'.  Somebody's lying here. It is not God so you only get one guess and there's no calling a friend. 

Time permitting I know whom I will continue to place my eternal soul with and it's not 'flesh and blood'. ​For I know whom, I have believed in and been persuaded that He is able to keep that which I've committed unto Him until that day...

If 'Catholic Answers' has nothing more up its sleeve, we will roll up ours and get to working out our own salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12-13). Inasmuch as the body without the spirit is dead, faith without works is dead  (James 2:26). By our works we will show our faith is alive and well (James 2:14-22, 24-26). 

Without it there's no pleasing God, right? (Hebrews 11:6-10). 

After all, even demons- believe and tremble. Considering where they are and where they've been they're likely having a laugh about those in the here and now who don't believe the truth about the here and after. Those who don't believe in God in view of Romans 1:16-22.

Not great company to be 'in', but there's always room at the 'Inn'. No reservation needed and there's always room

for  one more.

GET

IN TOUCH

​Of Pebbles and Peter...

"and the rock  (petra) was Christ". Rock: Greek - petra: large granite type foundational stone. The kind of which you would securely build something upon. Peter (petros) - small stone.

Like perhaps the fact that regarding Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" as divinely revealed to Peter by the Father in heaven. 

To say the least it revealed:

a) To prevail against the gates of Hades it would take the kind of power only Jesus had, the power that came with Him being given all authority on earth and in heaven.

b) The Rock (Petra) was Jesus the Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4) 

c) It surely wasn't Peter, 'petros', says 1 Corinthians 10:4.

1 Corinthians 10:4 not only specifically tells us who the Rock was in plain English as well as Greek for those reading this who don't get plain English but excel at plain Greek. What are the odds?

What, who said it's all Greek to me!

By exclusion it also tells us who it wasn't and isn't. That means- everybody and anybody else from 'In the beginning' (Genesis 1:1) to 'Then comes the end' (1 Corinthians 15:24) and more, 'period' That's right, I didn't put a '.' after the last sentence but I did outline a 'period'. Do I have to spell it out?

Scientists with their science are turning back the clock in the hopes of 'grandfathering' in theories, earthly knowledge and wisdom in trying to figure out the former. As lies are 'stillborn' that's plan 'B'. 'Grandfathering in' is also like 'carbon dating.' (which is not how my wife met me). Although these days I pretty much need carbon dating to find out how many birthday candles are needed for the cake.

On the other hand religionists, philosophers along with gloom and doomdayers (my version of doomsayers) are climbing mountains, scaling cliffs, with not much more than futility in their backpacks to go on, racing against the clock trying to put their hands on the latter. They just can't grasp it 'cause' it's always out of their reach.

Sand in an hourglass doesn't make time 'ours'. It doesn't mean one has caught and mastered time. What it is measuring as it slips through, is not within. Time is outside and beyond the hourglass just as our eternal souls are meant for something out and beyond our time constrained bodies.

Doomsayers: People who are not happy, hopeful or friendly; are pessimistic, cynical, defeatist.

A sure way- not to be a winner, though ironically in 1st place, in their own lack of class of course.

​Catholic Answers​

A further step was the appointment of St. Peter to be the chief of the Twelve.

For this position he had already been designated (Matt., xvi, 15 sqq.) on an occasion previous to that just mentioned: at Caesarea Philippi, Christ had declared him to be the rock on which He would build His Church,

thus affirming that the continuance and increase of the Church would rest on the office created in the person of Peter.

To him, moreover, were to be given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven—an expression signifying the gift of plenary authority (Is., xxii, 22).

The promise thus made was fulfilled after the Resurrection, on the occasion narrated in John, xxi. Here Christ employs a simile used on more than one occasion by Himself to denote His own relation to the members of His Church—that of the shepherd and his flock.

His solemn charge, “Feed my sheep”, constituted Peter the common shepherd of the whole collective flock.

​An Ounce of Common Sense Please...

"... you are Peter"... Peter: Greek - petros: small stones or pebbles. The kind of which you would pick up by a shore and skip across the water.

"... upon this rock"... Rock: Greek - petra: large granite type foundational stone. The kind of which you would securely build something upon. 

"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God"... Who revealed this fact of truth to Peter?  None other than,"And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father  who is in heaven". 

Yet instead, (enter stage 'wrong', along comes 'flesh and blood' trying to 'cast' a lie and a myth, namely, "at  Caesarea Philippi, Christ had declared him to be the rock on which He would build His Church".

The net they cast over the side, is meant to drag and catch none other than 'you'. You are being taken for a 'sucker'. The fish is commonly known as a "sucker" due to its fleshy, papillose lips that suck up organic matter and periphyton  (a complex mixture of algae, cyanobacteria, heterotrophic microbes,  and detritus that is attached to submerged surfaces in most aquatic ecosystems) from the bottom of rivers and streams - sounds yummy, no?  The white sucker is a bottom feeder (not a compliment in this context), meaning that it uses its fleshy lips to suck up bottom sediments and other organisms that may be located there. It will eat almost anything it can (also not a compliment).

You are never 'out of season'. No licence needed and can be best caught without a net by using the right 'lure' usually supplied by the prey for use by the predator. It's always in the shape of one of your own 'desires' as described in James 1:13-15. 

Thus, what makes sense here?

That Jesus was building His church/kingdom on Peter (Petros- small stone or pebble) or Jesus (Petra- large foundational rock) Himself being 'the Christ, the Son of the living God with the power and authority to build a church/kingdom so strong that even 'the gates of Hades will not overpower it". Matthew 16:18, NASU. No hurry. You may have a lifetime to think about it. You may not. If, you do think about it, the way most people do, you will start and stop on the same spot you began on, no matter how long you run.

Thanks to God the Father, Peter knew the difference, not being the Vicar of Christ anywhere, never mind this planet. Nor, did he claim to be. So, why then doesn't today's Pope know the difference?

If he did, he wouldn't lay claim to being the Vicar of Christ? VICAR OF CHRIST- The Pope, visible head of the Church on earth, acting for and in the place of Christ. He possesses supreme ecclesiastical authority in the Catholic church. This title for the Pope dates from at least the eighth century and gradually replaced the former title, "Vicar of St. Peter." Its biblical basis is Christ's commission of Peter to "feed my lambs, feed my sheep" (John 21:15-17) (Catholic Culture: Catholic Dictionary).

Oh, my mistake. The above Catholic source says 'in the Catholic church', not Christ's church. As Christ was undeniably clear He only built one church- His (AD33), naturally it makes sense that Christ would be head of His own church, not one that was started more than 300 years later by somebody else- regardless of any counterfeit claims to the contrary. My 'bad' - their 'worse'.

The  Father in heaven revealed to Peter just who Christ was and following, Christ stated just who Peter was. That is, as you are Peter, (Bar-Jonah, 'son of Jonah'), I Am Christ, Son of the living God. Then, Christ declares He would build His church and that the gates of Hades would not prevail against it because of WHO He was/is, not who Peter was. 

The church is 'those who believe in Christ and have been baptized into Him', Who is the head of the church (Acts 2:38, 40-41, 47). We're talking about the power of God in Christ who is 'the Son of the living God'. Whom God 'raised from the dead and did not abandon His soul to Hades nor allow His Holy One to decay' Acts 2:27. For each one of us it means less talk, more action. Walk the talk... and by the 'walk' I mean the 'way' of Jesus. By the 'talk'  I mean the 'words' of Christ, which will judge us all, each and every one, one-by-one.

Can I have more please sir? Sure! Ephesians 4:4-6; Gal 1:6-9.

​the Bible Answers        ... some basics 

The Claim: "For this position he had already been designated (Matt., xvi, 15 sqq.) on an occasion previous to that just mentioned: at Caesarea Philippi, Christ had declared him to be the rock on which He would build His Church" 

Is there any credility  to the claim that Matthew 16: 15 (Matt., 15 sqq.) designated/appointed Peter to be 'the chief of the Twelve'?  Did Christ declare Peter to be the rock on which He would build His church?

To assume or purport any such thing out of scriptural text, without support from the text itself or other corroborating text is called eisegesis. As opposed to exegesis (the 'drawing out' of text proper conclusions supported by the text or other text), eisegesis is the 'drawing in' of pre-determined doctrine, biases and opinion (personal or institutional) without supporting evidence from the text at hand or other corroborating text.

The aim should be to allow God's Word to speak for itself with scripture interpreting scripture, speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where it is silent

(1 Corinthians 4:6).

Church of Christ - Cornwall

​AD 1990

105 3rd St W, Cornwall, ON,

Canada K6J 2N9

(613) 933-8445

Email:churchofchristcornwall@hotmail.com

Church of Christ - Jerusalem 

AD 33

The churches of Christ Salute You Romans 16:16

GOOD NEWS!

​​​The Alleged Empowerment...

The following claim rides 'piggyback' on verse 18.

"at Caesarea Philippi, Christ had declared him to be the rock on which He would build His Church" - Catholic Answers

First of all, if Christ truly had built His church upon Peter, it naturally stands to reason it wouldn't have been Christ's church. It would have been Peter's in whole or part.

The only other alternative that comes to mind is that it would have belonged to both of them. Do you really believe that's what Jesus meant when He told Peter and the world, "I will build my church...?"

Christ's perfection is revealed in scripture regarding truth, virtue, honesty, integrity plus how carefully He chose His Words.

   a) He did not declare to Peter, "I will build 'our'   church".

   b) He did not declare to Peter, "I will build 'your' church".

   c) He did declare to Peter,         "I will build  'my'    church".

Besides, if you built your house on somebody else's foundation and land, whose house would it be?  Would it be partly yours and partially somebody else's? One's thing is for sure. It would be a 'house divided' with two masters. 'Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand. Matthew 12:25, NASU

SCRIPTORIALS & THEN SOME!

WELCOME

HOME

YOUR

PLACE TOO!

​Ponzi or Pyramid?...

13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will know them by their fruits. 

21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'  NASU

A Ponzi scheme generally only requires investment in something from its victims, with promised dividends down the road. Money is taken from new investors to pay existing ones or those who demand their money back- Getting money back seldom happens if ever and more often than not requires lengthy investigations, the police, court  and perhaps extended legal action. The money by that sense of timing is usually long gone. There is actually no valid enterprise or valid product. 

Pyramid schemes, unlike Ponzi schemes, usually offer a victim the opportunity to “make” money by recruiting more people into the scam. The top people make the money and reap the benefits as it all funnels to the top. There is very little trickle down effect, if any. The common 'lure' from the top people making the money and enjoying the wealth is, 'I don't make money unless and until you make money'. Remember a pyramid only has one point and it doesn't point down at you.

Standing room only.

​Scriptural Reference...

Matthew 16:13-19

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."

15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

18 I also say to you that you are Peter

and upon this rock I will build My church;

and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;

and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."  NASU

​The Claim regarding Peter: "For this position he had already been designated (Matt., xvi, 15 sqq.) on an occasion previous to that just mentioned: at Caesarea Philippi, Christ had declared him to be the rock on which He would build His Church" :  Catholic Answers: This website from Catholic Answers, with all its many resources, is the world’s largest source of explanations for Catholic beliefs and practices. A fully independent, lay-run, 501(c)(3) ministry...

Did Christ build His church upon Peter? Does biblical scripture authenticate and/or support such a claim?  Part 2

More Than a Little Cross-eyed...

​Does that mean Christianity was or is a fraud, counterfeit and on-going conspiracy? Not a chance! For that to be the case, Catholicism and Christianity would have had to have been 'one and the same'. Catholicism in it's earliest stages didn't come on the scene until some three centuries later under the emperor Constantine.

It is said that while journeying under a hot Roman sun, he had a vision of the cross while looking into the sun. In First Aid training we were taught something like that was a sign of heat-stroke not an epiphany. The epiphany would would be to recognize heat stroke. None the less, whatever he thinks he saw helped put an end to Christian persecution. That's where the real heat was. All things considered that point shouldn't be lost on us. As history shows the Roman Empire was a blueprint for morphing itself into the Roman Catholic Church. That took place with an edict accepting 'Christianity' (Edict of Milan) issued in 313 AD in Milan, Italy by Constantine. Ten years later the Emperor's version of Christianity, far removed in practice and pattern given the apostles through the Holy Spirit, was legally accepted as the official religion of Rome.

The irony and proof is that the religious version of 'Rome's' official religion very closely resembled and patterned itself in political organization and structure after the Roman Empire's political organization and structure. Same mirror, different frame; same type of people looking into it, seeing what they want to see. The modern day version Roman Empire goes into hard denial on this but they're simply the same type of people again looking into the same mirror. Regardless, for the sake of argument, even if a 'morphing' didn't transpire (harder to believe than not believe says Ripley), then the Roman Empire had illegitimate 'offspring'. Either way, the result has been too close for comfort.

For a while each system, (the empire/kingdom) and the new version, (the church/kingdom) had their respective concurrent leaders, cut from the same cloth as it were. As the Roman Empire decayed from the scene, the religious version remained and retained similar ID and almost identical Modus Operandi.

None Taken​...

No offense Peter, but I believe your 'dust' would 'rise' in your tomb at the thought of being coronated the first Pope- which is Latin for 'Father'. 

Matthew 23:9, Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. NASU. The Greek word for earth means the whole earthly globe including inhabitants. The Greek word for heaven is celestial as in coming down from the sky. What a contrast!

Well, by your own rules you are not supposed to have children physically (Pope or priest, prince or pauper). By God's rules you're not supposed to be called 'father' so that's got to mean 'spiritually' as heavenly beings are 'spirit'. Talk about being between a 'Rock' (Petra-Christ) and the proverbial hard place (Peter-Petros) again and again and again. Matthew chapter 23 is exceptional reading. isn't it? Should give it a try.

So, where's the 'real power'? What rock would you build your house upon? False doctrine and lies would have you build a 'house of cards' on sand by the sea shore with a stacked and marked deck. Quintuple jeopardy. Don't get caught napping on this one. Your deck's being  built with 'pressure treated slumber'.

Need further proof as to who the rock was/is, Jesus the Christ was referring to?  We know it wasn't Peter. Well, here's to the 'last card' to be played and prayerfully somebody, anybody (won't mention any names but you can put yours right here ______ ) will have sense as to knowing when to 'fold'em'. Rogers and out! The Gospel is calling the bluff of centuries. It's a done deal. If there's not enough room to put your full name in the space provided, just use your first given name. The Lord knows all by 'heart' anyway.

When we stand before God for judgement, it's a safe bet we will all, each and every single one, be on a first name basis. At least on God's part. Hope one and all are wearing 'I love Jesus' t-shirts however...

If it's not the one Jesus bought and paid for, there's no 'time' like the 'present' to try one on for size. After all, it is a 'gift'. Cause when all are 'present and accounted for' and the clock is no longer ticking, there won't be time. Here's that 'further proof' as to who the Rock was/is, Jesus the Christ was referring to. Surprise! It's Jesus. I Got you babe! And that's about as Sunny as it gets for you but thought I'd like to Cher it...

For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food;

4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petra) which followed them; and the rock  (petra) was Christ.

1 Corinthians 10:1-4, NASU

ALL

ABOUT  YOU!

THE LORD'S DAY

​​​​We're not finished... 

... thus affirming that the continuance and increase of the Church would rest on the office created in the person of Peter. (Catholic Answers)

Thus... no such thing, no such office. Concerning any man of 'flesh and blood',  the result would be the same. 'Straw man' in a 'straw office'. Yet, do you see how something as simple as referencing the term 'office' attempts to unabashedly but subtlety promote a seemingly innocuous agenda and plant in the mind of the 'reader' a non-existent presumption of legitimacy about something happening, the likes of which never did? 'Seemingly innocuous poison' may be the most toxic. Presumption? 

The pattern 'sowed' might look something like this. The vast majority simply accept what is handed them off the rack for a patchwork of reasons. What isn't on the rack are garments as white as snow. You'd think what is there, would wear thin sooner than not.

Patches include:

You don't really care. 

You,  or at least most of you can't be bothered to 'check it out'.

You figure they've spent years studying it and should be 'good for it'.

Your attitude is, 'Well that's what we pay them for'.

You're of the mind, why would they lie to me?

You do check things out but are ignoring... 

You do care, but not enough.

​

   ... the God-breathed fact (2 Timothy 3:16)

   ... that the faith has once for all been delivered (Jude 3)

   ... with faith coming by hearing the Word of God (Rom 10:17)

   ... that whatever is not of faith is sin (Romans 14:23b)

Thus, the religious powers that be are doggedly, desparately, indomitably set on Eisegesis (drawing in) i.e. finding ways of putting their own biased, prejudicial religious unscriptural, unauthentic, unsealable Johnny come lately 'spirits' into  a vintage scriptural, authenticated, sealable wineskin. Or, as Jesus said in His days on earth, protagonists back in the day just refused to accept that one doesn't put a 'new wine substitute' into an old wineskin' of truth. Yet, physically they knew you couldn't, shouldn't and wouldn't accept any that 'was'.

doggedly: pursuing in a manner showing tanacity and grim persistence.  "Some doggedly pursue a biblically unsupported path".

Regarding clergy I once had somebody say to me about catholic doctrine, "Well that's not for you or me to decide anyway. They spend their time studying this kind of stuff and certainly know more about it than you or I". I disagreed. I also suggested that it was naive and irresponsible not to check things out. Does it make sense to blindly throw one's soul under the bus of any earthly driven man-made religion? Board the bus that Jesus drives. Bumper to bumper it's the only way to travel. Take a seat next to the Bereans (Acts 17:10-12). The conversation abruptly ended with 'someone' angry that I had the audacity to question the powers that be. My underlying point which fell by the wayside was, 'they' weren't/aren't the powers that be.

Presumption: a conclusion reached based upon evidence and/or a previous pattern. 2 Timothy 2:15; 3:16-17: your GPS to heaven.

Assumption: a conclusion reached without supporting evidence or previous pattern. Proverbs 14:12, 16:25: your GLWT (Good Luck With That) to wherever, whenever.

In this case, raising Peter onto an unsupported 'pedestal' which flies in the face of hermeneutics, exegesis or scriptural evidence then capping it all off with a 'promotion' not even Peter, any other apostles or other inspired writers acknowledged, makes the phrase 'way over the top' woefully wanting/inadequate. It must be pointed out that the strategy employed by those who want to go the extreme to push an agenda includes they don't care how they get it done.

ABOUT US!

A zeptosecond is ​​​the time it takes a 'light' particle (photon) to cross a hydrogen molecule.

It (a zeptosecond) is the smallest unit of time science has ever recorded. 

That time, for the record, is 247 zeptoseconds.

A zeptosecond is a trillionth of a billionth of a second.

​

So, if someone asks you to wait a second, in zeptoseconds, they're giving you a really long time -that is, if you're fast enough.

At the end of its 'journey' one scientist asked the 'light particle', "What took you so long?" Not.

​​Under New Management...

​Modus Operandi: a particular way or method of doing something, especially one that is characteristic or well-established. 

​The Roman Catholic Church, as framed/pictured by the Roman Empire was like double exposure. Politics and power anyone?

Turns out, the Roman Empire could not and did not meet its own expectations including cornering the market in world domination. Self-destructing from within and assailed from without, as history shows, it became history. Conversely, the Roman Empire a.k.a., the Roman Catholic Church, most surely  took its predecessor's 'perverted prospectus' to new lows, also as history shows. Further, currently it is not history... yet. Still, it too is decaying from within and evermore recently, increasingly being assailed at the gates. Unlike the previous model, it is still here and likely will be for some time to come. Decaying in its never-ending pursuit of world domination, it is in every corner of the world. Like its beta, this version, complete with a fatally flawed business plan, will not prevail against the gates of Hades. 

For all that, the Roman Catholic Church never was the church Jesus built. In spite of claims to the contrary, has never been part of Jesus's 'fold or flock'. Simply denying it doesn't make the case against it, not true. Moreover simply by repeating the denial forever ad infinitum, doesn't turn a lie into truth. The face of the evidence and scripture interpreting scripture will either enlighten the eyes of one's heart or cause spiritual blindness. Loss of spiritual sight for lack of vision. Lack of vision, spiritual sight unseen.

Jesus asked His disciples, "But who do you say that I am?"

Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 

Jesus, acknowledges what Simon Peter says is true by saying that the Father in heaven revealed that truth to Peter. He (Jesus) comes right back at him with, " I also say to you that you are Peter" (petros). I cannot stress enough that 'Catholic Answers' bases its claim about Peter being/becoming the first 'Pope' on this, their own statement: "at Caesarea Philippi, Christ had declared him to be the rock on which He (Christ) would build His Church". 

No disrespect to Peter. He struggled to prevail many times:

a)   Initially denying Christ the opportunity to wash his feet
b)  Then denying Christ three times even as Christ was being  crucified
c)  Then resisting God's heavenly vision concerning acceptance of the Gentiles into the fold, mind you based on honest concern 
d) Then putting on the 'mask of hypocrisy' whereby Paul was the only one to confront him to his face. As Paul himself stated, "because he stood condemned".

the Gates of Hades...

Peter had no more ability to prevail against the gates of Hades than a snowball's chance of not melting in the 'hotter' side of Hades. I do believe the rich man would have gladly 'suffered' a snowball thrown his way. Wouldn't you, if in his position? (Luke 16:24-27). The rich man speaks. Abraham says it like it is-

And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.' 25 But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.'  NASU

One would do well to give heed. Not for his benefit but your own.

Now, think! If you're of a mind to. If the above 'chasm' statement is true, everything regarding any religion or church, other than the one religion and only church Jesus built (in AD 33), ends up being one vast religious Ponzi or Pyramid scheme. Biggest and longest ongoing conspiracy ever! Suffice to say both schemes are 'fraudulent'. Devil's advocate or what?

​In truth Jesus disavowed both types of fraud in Matthew 7:13-23. Another kind of fraud is offering people something you don't have or misleading them into believing you are something you are not. 

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.

14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15, NASU

DIRECTIONS

HOME AT LAST

Your words, not mine. Let's see what God's Word has to say about that... after all, He does have the final Word does He not?

las iglesias de Cristo os saludan Romanos 16:16

AT 

YOUR SERVICE

​​​According to the Pattern...

"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ". ​1 Corinthians 3:11, NASU

​Do you notice what Paul says? The foundation isn't something Jesus built. the foundation is Jesus Christ.

And Paul just previously says how others must be careful about how they build upon the foundation 'which is Jesus Christ'. Is he alluding to others each devising their own personal plans on what to build and how?  Absolutely not inasmuch as, all building must conform to God's pattern/building codes as outlined for the the new and better covenant enacted on better promises.

... just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, "SEE," He says, "THAT YOU MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN." 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry,by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. Hebrews 8:5-6:, NASU

Not faultless, the old covenant did exactly what it was designed to do (Romans 7:7; Galatians 3:23-29). Now that the new covenant is all of verse 6 and more... do you think God expects 'less' regarding "according to the pattern"?

Secondly, if Christ would have built the church and Christianity upon Peter, the so-called church and the movement would have have been DOA, just like any other church God didn't plant.