/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>682542

I've always been somewhat torn if Peter should correspond to Levi or Judah due to his prime position among the apostles yet also being the leading priest.

I've always pictures John as corresponding to Joseph because he was the beloved disciple and Joseph seems to be the favored one among the children of Jacob.

>>682542

how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

>>682542

In ehat order are the Apostles usually placed? Theres likely some correclatiom there.

>>682545

Sssshhhhhhhhhhh

>peter has primacy

the way gospel of john ends, looked to me like john did

matthias (acts 1) is similar to levi. in ot levi didnt have an inheritance with israel until rev 7 as dan (judas) gets kicked out.

john represents judah. john is my favorite of the 12. he wrote john, 1 john, and revelation.

peter represents gad. he cuts someones ear off.

>behold a troop cometh

or he could be reuben since he is

>unstable as water

when he denies Christ 3 times, messes up at the transfiguration, and gets called satan.

there isnt too much information about the other apostles except paul.. who literally self identifies with the tribe of benjamite in acts and at least one of the epistles.

>>682564

>the way gospel of john ends, looked to me like john did

then why did John wait for Peter to enter the Tomb first?

>>682564

also, the rest smells like personal interpretation to me

Peter is Levi, not Judah

>>682567

>20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

>21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

>22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

John 21

>>682568

this entire conversation is personal interpretation, derp. the bible does not crosswalk each apostle to tribe.

>>682588

that scripture quote makes no sense in the context of your claim that Peter had no primacy among the Apostles

>>682597

peter is inquiring Jesus about why he is taking john somewhere to which he says “what does it matter to you what i do”

you didnt even quote a scripture. youre referencing john 20. walking into the sepulchre first is important to you why?

>>682597

He could have used a much stronger one, like Peter and no one else, definitely not someone who wrote the most books of the New Testament, speaking at a council overseen by James

>>682599

And this displaces Peter as Cephas how?

>walking into the sepulchre first is important to you why?

The Beloved Disciple waited for Peter to go in first, there is no explanation given for his deference, or for Peter's very frequent first listing among the Apostles in Scripture.

>>682600

The actions and duties of the other Apostles do not disparage the fact that Christ built the Church on Peter.

Daily reminder that

Peter =/= Church of Rome =/= Bishop of Rome

>>682605

And the distinction between Orthodox and Protestant is blended and twisted further and further

>>682637

>besides, paul wrote a lot more scripture and withstood cephas to the face for his folly by being persuaded to circumcise gentiles.

meaning? Christ gave Peter the Title, and then proclaimed: 1. His church 2. The binding and loosening of Heaven 3. and that the Church will never fall

neglect these truths at your own peril

>>682638

mkay.

>>682640

mkay to what?

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

It's Christ you wag your lip at, not me.

>>682641

no i said “mkay” because ive already had this argument before dozens of times and always leads to cognitive dissonance from my opposition.

>ignore these truths at your peril

>its christ you wag your lip at not me

i disagree with your interpretation but since youre equivocating my disagreement with you as a rejection of Jesus Christ and the truth, then its fully evident that youre going to argue in a juvenile and disingenuous manner and would thus be a waste of my time.

>>682643

>and always leads to cognitive dissonance from my opposition.

Amazing! Then explain why you deny Christ's word.

18And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

>i disagree with your interpretation

Not my interpretation, but the authentic teachings of the Apostles and the True Church for over 2,000 years, when Christ uttered these words.

>since youre equivocating my disagreement with you as a rejection of Jesus Christ and the truth

When you reject Christ's authority, you bet your butt you are rejecting Christ.

>then its fully evident that youre going to argue in a juvenile and disingenuous manner and would thus be a waste of my time.

?

>>682644

rejecting the pope is not rejecting the authority of Christ and the scriptures, actually. no man other than God and Christ has authority over me. everyone else is a man just like me.. just like i referenced peter saying to cornelius in acts.

sorry you feel otherwise. youre wrong.

also, quote matthew 18 where Jesus is repeating mt 16:19 to all of his apostles, not just peter.

>>682646

>rejecting the pope is not rejecting the authority of Christ and the scriptures, actually

Christ gave Peter the keys of kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever he shalt bind and loose on earth, shall be the same in heaven. I'm quoting Christ verbatim here, do you deny it?

>no man other than God and Christ has authority over me.

And Christ invested His authority over the Apostles, not merely with Cephas christening, but also with the Pentecost and other times in Scripture. Do you also deny this?

>sorry you feel otherwise. youre wrong.

Now with less citations!

>quote matthew 18 where Jesus is repeating mt 16:19 to all of his apostles, not just peter.

It does not matter, Christ specifically invested Peter with the rights to loose and bind on Heaven and Earth, you see His Words yourself.

>>682606

lmao says the man qith Protestant clown mass

>>682648

Every word of calumny shall be examined by Our Mutual Judge, God bless you.

>>682647

looks like the convo cannot proceed until you address my points about matthew 18 and cornelius. ill check back momentarily.

>>682644

>That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

You really don't know the Protestant interpretation? We believe the "rock" Jesus was referring to was Peter's statement in the previous verse that Christ was the messiah, and that the church is built upon that statement. Peter is called "rock" for professing the statement, but he is not the rock the church is built upon - the church is built upon the fact that Christ is the messiah.

So, we read the same words, but that's the meaning we take.

>>682652

Which is inane, because then the text reads

"That thou art Peter; and upon this rock, which is myself, I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"

or perhaps,

"That thou art Peter; and upon myself I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"

Christ speaks through parable, not through confused grammar.

>>682650

There's nothing to address, the rest of Matthew 18 does not disprove the proclamation of Matthew 16:18. The Pope is not worshiped as God, or Christ, or even as St. Peter himself, we don't even know if being a Pope is a free-ticket to heaven (without an official proclamation of saint-hood, anyway).

What does the "greatest in heaven" have to do with "binding and loosening on heaven and earth"? This is the real contention that's on yourself to prove, and I suspect you have zero to back up your argument with, simply because it has nothing to do with each other!

Papal infallibility is about authoritative statements on faith & morals, being based on the authority to bind and loose bestowed upon by Christ, not about the Pope being a really great guy or whatever it is you're trying to say.

My speculation.

Judah is Peter of course. Primacy and stuff.

John is Benjamin. One was beloved by Christ, one was beloved by Jacob.

Judas is Dan. One betrayed Christ, of one antichrist will come.

Matthias is Manasseh. He replaced Judas as Manasseh replace Dan in Revelation 7.

Dunno about rest.

Back to the actual topic of the thread, I think there may be some correlation between the 12 tribes, the Apostles, and the order of the 12 stones on the breastplate and the 12 foundations stones of the New Jerusalem. They are in fact all the same minerals, but translation errors from Greek to English often makes it seem as if there are different minerals.

*yawn*

John 10:16 & John 21:15-17

>>682911

Oh wow, nothing to to with the OP question.

>>682659

In Matthew 16:18, "the rock" does not speak of Peter, but Christ (in an abstract sense, as the one around whom our faith is centered, not materially, as Himself standing there, thus it would not make sense for Him to shift to first person pronouns). Peter is listed first among the apostles, he is often the one to speak with Christ, he is the first to obey the great commission, his faith is seemingly the strongest, yet goes into hiding when tribulation strikes. The man is a walking, talking allegory of the Church. Therefore, as Christ is the true rock of our faith, as it is all founded on the fact He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, so too was Simon called Peter, as the Christian is called from Christ. So Christ's words mean "Thou art a rock for the world, and I shall stack thee upon myself, being the rock you rest upon, and the gates of hell shall not conquer this Church".

And since Christ's topic had shifted from Peter to what he symbolized, namely, the Church, He now adressed the Church. To them He gives the keys of the kingdom of heaven, which are plural unlike the key to the house of David, because they posses a multiple function. Not, as Rome vainly supposes, an epistemic power, but the key to the gate of God's kingdom on earth and the key to the chains of sin, exercised in the preaching of the gospel and in church discipline. This is why when the promise of the keys given in 16:18 is fulfilled in John 20:21-23 He tells them to retain and remit sins, for they have the power to loose men from the sin which binds them, through the power of God unto salvation, and when it is fulfilled in Matthew 18:15-20 He gives the regulation for excommunication, since when the gates of heaven on earth are opened for the newly freed soul, they are required to live by the laws of the kingdom, but when they break these laws the King's ministers are empowered to banish them, leaving them outside its walls, even if they are without chains, and Christ's to retrieve when their time comes. Therefore, the power to bind and loose respects bringing men in and out of the visible and invisible church, respectively, and not one bit a notion of infallibility.

Jesus was the Lion of the tribe of Judah.

Judas doesnt count and represents modern day "Jews". Matthias and Paul came later so the other 11 apostles are the rest of the tribes.

>>683028

>In Matthew 16:18, "the rock" does not speak of Peter, but Christ.

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus Christ proclaims Peter Cephas, and says that upon this stone (the Cephas), He shall build His Church.

You take Christ's own words and muddle them to support your own conclusion. If Christ had meant Himself, He would have stated as such.

>yet goes into hiding when tribulation strikes

Meaning that even the most pious and the most beloved (even physically in and around our Lord) are still struck with the obstinacy of the world and our fallen condition, not to prove in some inane round-about away that Jesus Christ's proclamations had no water. By your very same logic, we could say that the Apostles were rejected as Christ's true Church when they slept instead of spending the hour with Our Lord, but never let this idiocy ever seriously escape my lips.

>The man is a walking, talking allegory of the Church.

St. Peter was a walking and talking man. On whose authority do you proclaim this interpretation?

>So Christ's words mean "Thou art a rock for the world, and I shall stack thee upon myself, being the rock you rest upon, and the gates of hell shall not conquer this Church".

Don't put words in God's mouth. Christ is free to bestow His Authority on whom he wishes, and that was Peter.

>And since Christ's topic had shifted from Peter to what he symbolized, namely, the Church, He now adressed the Church.

Then why did not Christ simply gather all the Apostles and proclaim them all Cephas?

>>683028

Speaking of tradition and interpretation, your post moved me to look up the early church teachings concerning Peter, and apparently they correlated Moses receiving the Commandments from God with Peter receiving the "Keys" from Christ.

That's a pretty powerful comparison, to me anyway.

>>682647

>It does not matter, Christ specifically invested Peter with the rights to loose and bind on Heaven and Earth, you see His Words yourself.

You say Matthew 18 does not matter? But don't you see clearly how Matthew 16:19 is in the future tense and not present tense. It says these things will happen. Then in Matthew 18:18, our Lord and Savior clearly says the same is applying to all of the future apostles of his church. This is also how we know this has to do with church discipline, because see the previous verses in Matthew 18:15-17. Finally, in John 20 the Lord Jesus Christ actually passes on the authority to do church discipline, which he said was coming. This is all a very logical progression of events. You can't just sperg out on one verse and say the rest "does not matter." That's popery for you.

>>683055

>You say Matthew 18 does not matter?

I say Matthew 18 has nothing to do with any coherent interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Christ bestowed the Keys to Peter, but reinforced many times His love among the sheep and the Apostles were still equal, I do not see the confusion between the bestowal upon authority as you do. A father can entrust one son with the keys to the house, but still remind him that he's responsible for the rest of the family.

>But don't you see clearly how Matthew 16:19 is in the future tense and not present tense

Whereas, Matthew 16:18 is in the present tense. Frankly, that makes the succession argument sound even more powerful to the detriment of your argument.

>Then in Matthew 18:18, our Lord and Savior clearly says the same is applying to all of the future apostles of his church.

Yet, Christ speaks to Peter specifically, and christens him Cephas specifically when the keys were given.

>This is all a very logical progression of events. You can't just sperg out on one verse and say the rest "does not matter." That's popery for you.

I suppose the blind cannot see that they are blind.

>>683046

>In Matthew 16:18, Jesus Christ proclaims Peter Cephas, and says that upon this stone (the Cephas), He shall build His Church.

Since you assert your interpretation without any argument behind it, I feel safe dismissing it with the same.

>You take Christ's own words and muddle them to support your own conclusion.

You're not doing yourself any service by equating Christ's words with your interpretation.

>If Christ had meant Himself, He would have stated as such.

Far be it from me to actually look at the context of what Christ said and use what He actually said to understand what He meant, instead of having some pope give me the Apostolic interpretation™and just dismiss all else as being against Christ.

>Meaning that even the most pious and the most beloved (even physically in and around our Lord) are still struck with the obstinacy of the world and our fallen condition, not to prove in some inane round-about away that Jesus Christ's proclamations had no water. By your very same logic, we could say that the Apostles were rejected as Christ's true Church when they slept instead of spending the hour with Our Lord, but never let this idiocy ever seriously escape my lips.

I would be happy to respond to this, had it only had anything whatsoever to do with my argument instead of just being empty rhetoric.

>On whose authority do you proclaim this interpretation?

There it is. I'll be honest, I'm surprised you touched on the relevant text at all. I was expecting you to cede the field immediately and retreat to what you consider higher ground straightaway like most of you do. I believe that there is no authority higher than God, and when God speaks He does so without reliance on any authority but Himself. Though I know of at least one father whose opinions you no doubt hold in very high regard who held this view, God's word stands alone on its own merits.

>Then why did not Christ simply gather all the Apostles and proclaim them all Cephas?

Perhaps you should take it up with Him instead of asking me such inane, purposeless questions.

>>683056

>I say Matthew 18 has nothing to do with any coherent interpretation of Matthew 16:18

Then you're a fool, because nobody who actually wants to know what it means will dismiss parallel passages.

>the Apostles were still equal

Not if Peter's pope they weren't. You aren't equal if one of you is "universal ruler".

>Christ speaks to Peter specifically

He doesn't, as already proven.

>christens him Cephas specifically when the keys were given

Wrong again, John 1:42. All Christ did in Matthew 16:18 was explain the name He already gave him.

>>683058

>Since you assert your interpretation without any argument behind it, I feel safe dismissing it with the same.

Yeah, just me and the entire Catholic Church.

>You're not doing yourself any service by equating Christ's words with your interpretation.

The Holy Church's interpretation.

>Far be it from me to actually look at the context of what Christ said and use what He actually said to understand what He meant

If Christ had said He would built the Church on Himself alone, He would have said it. He didn't, you cannot refute this.

>I believe that there is no authority higher than God

Which Christ bestowed upon the Apostles at the Pentecost, don't play dumb.

>>682658

>Which is inane, because then the text reads…

Look man, very intelligent men have been on both sides of this argument for hundreds of years. You're "your reading is obviously wrong" is the same as Atheist's "lol, sky daddy, how can you believe that book, it's obviously wrong,"

You simply haven't taken the time to understand the opposing perspective. At least you could act like a humble Christian and admit it.

>>682658

Peter himself admits that Christ is the cornerstone (the stone to build the rest of the building upon) in 1 Peter 2:6:

>For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

Go read it in context. Reading Matthew 18 in context with 1 Peter 2, who was quoting Isaiah makes it obvious Christ was referring to the truth of himself as messiah and not Peter. Otherwise, it's all contradictory.

>>683303

>Look man, very intelligent men have been on both sides of this argument for hundreds of years.

And they've been wrong for hundreds of years, you have about 1,500 years worth of men, no, Saints, with the traditions of the Apostles with this understanding. It's not my fault or the Church's fault that men try to gleam any other understanding than the truth.

>the same as Atheist's "lol, sky daddy, how can you believe that book, it's obviously wrong,"

That's a great projection, my understanding comes from the Apostles, and the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, which you all deny.

>You simply haven't taken the time to understand the opposing perspective

There is no opposing perspective, you REALLY do not understand the point of authority, do you?

>Peter himself admits that Christ is the cornerstone (the stone to build the rest of the building upon) in 1 Peter 2:6:

And the cornerstone designated Peter as Cephas, which the true Church will be built on. Why do you call Christ the corner-stone, but then deny what the corner-stone says?

>Reading Matthew 18 in context with 1 Peter 2, who was quoting Isaiah makes it obvious Christ was referring to the truth of himself as messiah and not Peter. Otherwise, it's all contradictory.

Contradictory to yourself and your false understanding.

>>683305

or rather, Simon as Cephas

>>683296

>The Holy Church's interpretation.

I agree with this, actually. You would be loathe to act like a human being and dare to think for yourself. You are, clearly, a sworn slave of the pope. Your disinterest in the word of God and mental bondage to a man should serve as a cautionary tale of what happens when we deny the bible its proper authority as the ground and pillar of knowledge.

>If Christ had said He would built the Church on Himself alone, He would have said it. He didn't, you cannot refute this

I won't bother wasting my time refuting a non-argument that begs the question and refuses to speak in its own defense.

>Which Christ bestowed upon the Apostles at the Pentecost

Actually, that's blasphemy. I know you make men equal with God, I'm just surprised you brazenly admit it.

>>683305

>my understanding comes from the Apostles

Your understanding comes from a magisterium, men who dare to annex to themselves what belongs to God alone. Your "understanding" is automatically invalid because it springs from men who are more accurately described by no term than Antichrist.

>>683305

See

>>683304

and

Ephesians 2:19-21

>“Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.”

Now both Peter and Paul say that Christ is the cornerstone as prophesied by Isaiah. Why do you keep insisting Peter is the cornerstone (the stone upon which the church is built) when there are explicit verses the contrary all over the bible. Seriously dude.

What the winnie the pooh happened to my thread?

>>683337

your thread was dumb anyways

>>683309

>You would be loathe to act like a human being and dare to think for yourself.

Do you then accuse of the Eunuch of sinning by asking for a guide to the scriptures? Or perhaps, did God sin by sending the eunuch St. Philip to explain Isaiah to him?

>Your disinterest in the word of God and mental bondage to a man should serve as a cautionary tale of what happens when we deny the bible its proper authority as the ground and pillar of knowledge.

20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

See: Pentecost.

>I won't bother wasting my time refuting a non-argument that begs the question and refuses to speak in its own defense.

Matthew 16:18, Christ literally pronounces He will build the Church upon Cephas, why revile me?

>Actually, that's blasphemy. I know you make men equal with God, I'm just surprised you brazenly admit it

The Pentecost is blasphemy?

>>683317

And then, the corner-stone dubbed Simon as Cephas. Right? Did Christ say something else? Perhaps, did Christ mean to name Himself Cephas?

>Why do you keep insisting Peter is the cornerstone (the stone upon which the church is built) when there are explicit verses the contrary all over the bible. Seriously dude.

Where did I proclaim Peter is the corner-stone?

>>683429

>Do you then accuse of the Eunuch of sinning by asking for a guide to the scriptures?

He didn't ask for a guide to the scriptures, he asked Phillip to explain the passage to him, because he (HE, not EVERYONE) didn't understand it. Phillip didn't seem to have a problem understanding it, unless you accuse him of misinterpretation, or believe God appeared to him and explained what was otherwise incomprehensible to him. Either one is ridiculous. But I ask, do you accuse the noble Bereans of sin, because they examined the scriptures to see their meaning?

>Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation

This verse is often abused. It does not mean it is impossible to accurately interpret scripture (wouldn't that be a great irony, considering one would only know it through their private interpretation), but that no part of scripture has its font in a man, but all is the deliberate revelation of God. Hence, "prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost", which would be incoherent if your interpretation were valid.

>Christ literally pronounces He will build the Church upon Cephas

Already refuted without resistance, moving on

>The Pentecost is blasphemy?

No, your ascription of divine authority to men is.

>>683429

>Where did I proclaim Peter is the corner-stone?

The rock upon which the church shall be built. The cornerstone, the first stone laid when building a building. Are you so dense you cannot acknowledge "rock" and "stone" are synonyms.

Matthew 16:18 is ambiguous, that's long acknowledged. However, 1 Peter 2 and Ephesians 2:19-21 show that Christ is the cornerstone, the rock upon which the church is to be build- more specifically, in Matthew 16:18, it is the acknowledgment that Christ is the Messiah that is the cornerstone of the church. The whole nature of a cornerstone is the stone (rock) upon which a building is made.

So, how do you explain the discrepancy? I'm interesting in the mental gymnastics you're going to have to pull to keep your reading of Matthew 16:18 in the face of other scripture that clearly places in context the protestant reading.

>>683590

>The cornerstone, the first stone laid when building a building. Are you so dense you cannot acknowledge "rock" and "stone" are synonyms.

The corner-stone literally proclaims Peter is Cephas, otherwise we would be calling Jesus Christ "Cephas" for over 2,000 years of history. I should rename you "cephas" cuz u dense, boi.

>Matthew 16:18 is ambiguous, that's long acknowledged.

What? By who? Any Church Father? Or no, nothing but protestants?

>However, 1 Peter 2 and Ephesians 2:19-21 show that Christ is the cornerstone, the rock upon which the church is to be build

And then the corner-stone proclaims He will build the Church on Cephas! Are we reading different passages? Are you in an alternate universe perhaps?

>So, how do you explain the discrepancy?

I have no clue! There is no discrepancy, Jesus Christ clearly proclaimed Simon as Cephas, and said that the Church will be built upon him! I can refute by just re-posting Matthew 16:18 over and over, this is inane.

>>683453

>He didn't ask for a guide to the scriptures, he asked Phillip to explain the passage to him

…I mean, are you being ironic here or?

>because he (HE, not EVERYONE) didn't understand it

The eunuch represented the Gentiles whom had no guide or direction on the correct interpretation of Isaiah, and then Philip tells him of Jesus Christ! Imagine if God had sent a mosiac Jew!

>But I ask, do you accuse the noble Bereans of sin, because they examined the scriptures to see their meaning?

are you really calling the Bereans noble?

>Already refuted without resistance, moving on

Refuted with what? Funky logic? Lies? Are you of the ones of whom Christ speaks that you may be blind?

>No, your ascription of divine authority to men is.

Jesus Christ was granted all authority by God, the father, and then this Christ did breathe the Holy Ghost upon His Apostles, and then we even got the Pentecost to prove it! I'm not sure what blinds you, but may God help you to see.

>>683849

ah my bad, thought bereans were some funky sect

"Sola Scriptura Protestants reject extra-Biblical teachings. But Catholics don’t, and the Bereans didn’t. If they did, they would have rejected St. Paul and the Christian Gospel — which, at that point, was only being transmitted orally. Instead, the Bereans were open-minded and open-hearted enough to listen to a teaching that was consistent with the Scriptures but not found in the Scriptures (namely, the Jesus of Nazareth died and rose) and to come to accept it as true."

http://shamelesspopery.com/noble-bereans/

Bereans accepted the Apostle, I wish protestants did too. I have you all to thank for enriching my understanding of your errors, however.

>>683845

>The corner-stone literally proclaims Peter is Cephas, otherwise we would be calling Jesus Christ "Cephas" for over 2,000 years of history. I should rename you "cephas" cuz u dense, boi.

No, Peter was named Cephas for the stone he -recognized- , not because he himself was the stone. It was a name given because he saw the rock before anyone else. It was an honor, but it didn't make him the cornerstone of the church.

>What? By who? Any Church Father? Or no, nothing but protestants?

Only literally millions upon millions of people, but yeah.

>And then the corner-stone proclaims He will build the Church on Cephas! Are we reading different passages? Are you in an alternate universe perhaps?

The cornerstone isn't laid upon Cephas, it is Cephas. Or, in the Greek, Strong's Concordance 4074 means Petros, a detached stone (or Peter the Apostle). Whereas 4073 Petran means connected rock, bedrock, like where Christ says to build a foundation.

Peter is not the foundation, he is clearly named after a detached stone. The -first- stone laid in a building is the corner stone. Only Peter or Christ can be the cornerstone and Peter doesn't mean "bedrock"

1 Peter 2 and Ephesians 2:19-21 say Christ is the cornerstone. Do you think it's actually the Apostle Peter? Do you think Peter and Paul are lying when they say Christ is the corner stone?

>I have no clue! There is no discrepancy, Jesus Christ clearly proclaimed Simon as Cephas, and said that the Church will be built upon him! I can refute by just re-posting Matthew 16:18 over and over, this is inane.

You're so sure of yourself that it makes your arguments weak. Please see my more detailed explanation above.