Search Results
7/6/2025, 1:45:57 AM
>>509609047
>exactly 2000 years
Not quite there yet. Towards 2030 will be 2000 years since the resurrection. Is it any wonder the world powers are getting very nervous in the last years? and planning their total control over mankind towards 2030? Something is going to happen, and this whole statue here looks like its going to be smashed by a stone cut out without hands.
>exactly 2000 years
Not quite there yet. Towards 2030 will be 2000 years since the resurrection. Is it any wonder the world powers are getting very nervous in the last years? and planning their total control over mankind towards 2030? Something is going to happen, and this whole statue here looks like its going to be smashed by a stone cut out without hands.
6/29/2025, 2:08:42 PM
>>509029178
>>509029310
Saying “Peter = pope” because his name means “rock” is like saying “Elijah = airplane” because he went up. It’s a leap, not a conclusion from the text.
Yes, Jesus calls him Petros, a stone, and says, “on this rock I will build My Church”. But two verses later, the supposed “first pope” gets called “Satan” for opposing the cross. That’s your infallible foundation?
Mark and Luke record the same conversation, yet leave out the “rock” line entirely. Why? Because the focus isn’t Peter, it’s his confession: “You are the Christ.” That’s the true foundation. Even Peter says so (1Peter 2:6-8).
And no, the early church did not treat Peter as a pope. In Acts 15, he speaks, but James gives the final ruling. In Galatians 2, Paul rebukes Peter to his face for hypocrisy. Try imagining Paul correcting a modern pope in public.
As for your “popes = Roman pontiffs = bishops of Rome” line, that’s just circular logic. The title "pope" wasn't used until centuries later, and early Church Fathers like Cyprian and Firmilian directly rejected the idea of Roman supremacy. They viewed all bishops as equals.
Lastly, comparing Peter to Jesus is just off. Jesus is the Son of God. Peter is a forgiven fisherman. No one denies he had a key role, but turning that into a world monarchy with infallibility and political power? That’s Rome’s invention, not Scripture’s teaching.
The Church is built on Christ, the confession of Him as Lord, not on any mortal man's title. That’s not Protestant spin. It's the Word of God.
>>509029310
Saying “Peter = pope” because his name means “rock” is like saying “Elijah = airplane” because he went up. It’s a leap, not a conclusion from the text.
Yes, Jesus calls him Petros, a stone, and says, “on this rock I will build My Church”. But two verses later, the supposed “first pope” gets called “Satan” for opposing the cross. That’s your infallible foundation?
Mark and Luke record the same conversation, yet leave out the “rock” line entirely. Why? Because the focus isn’t Peter, it’s his confession: “You are the Christ.” That’s the true foundation. Even Peter says so (1Peter 2:6-8).
And no, the early church did not treat Peter as a pope. In Acts 15, he speaks, but James gives the final ruling. In Galatians 2, Paul rebukes Peter to his face for hypocrisy. Try imagining Paul correcting a modern pope in public.
As for your “popes = Roman pontiffs = bishops of Rome” line, that’s just circular logic. The title "pope" wasn't used until centuries later, and early Church Fathers like Cyprian and Firmilian directly rejected the idea of Roman supremacy. They viewed all bishops as equals.
Lastly, comparing Peter to Jesus is just off. Jesus is the Son of God. Peter is a forgiven fisherman. No one denies he had a key role, but turning that into a world monarchy with infallibility and political power? That’s Rome’s invention, not Scripture’s teaching.
The Church is built on Christ, the confession of Him as Lord, not on any mortal man's title. That’s not Protestant spin. It's the Word of God.
Page 1