Answers To Your Questions About Precious Stones In The Bible

Did Jesus establish the Roman Catholic Church and a Papal system?

I say absolutely not! It was hundreds of years later after the Resurrection that independent sovereign local churches came under papal and patriarchal control. Many avoided participation, but suffered persecution because of it. Why would Jesus have chosen Rome as the place to establish the Catholic Church? His focus was and is on Jerusalem.
Matthew 16:17-19 "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. [18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

"That thou art Peter" is Jesus giving Simon a new ID "Peter", after the Greek "petros", a rock larger than a "lithos" stumbling stone. Petros means a piece of a large mass of rock. Jesus is that Rock. 1 Cor. 10:4 "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

"upon this rock", the Greek being"petra", meaning like a rock mountain, the mother of smaller rocks. Peter's revelation put him instantly as one of Jesus' stones on His mountain of stones. Jesus is the Head of the Church on Earth and in Heaven, the authority placed upon a mortal man and his replacements. His little stones ("Little Christs" as Christians were first called) can bind and lose, but not over-ride Jesus' commandments.

"I will give unto thee" was addressed to all the apostles that were present, extended to Paul, and all future believers the Father God would give to Jesus.
You might want to be seated while reading this one considering the author. 1 Peter 2:1-10 "Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, [2] As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: [3] If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. [4] To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, [5] Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. [6] Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. [7] Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, [8] And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. [9] But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: [10] Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."

Peter himself identified Jesus as the rock the Church is built on. He was first to receive that revelation, but never claimed control, nor did other apostles, over the churches. No apostles wrote anything about Peter being chief head of the Church universal. Frankly, to accomplish that would required the powerful reach of an entity like the Roman Empire at a time when Rome tolerated no power competitors.

What say ye, Catholics? Please base answers on Bible scriptures, not unfounded doctrines. Prove your belief with the Bible. Thanks.

Is this a simplistic difference between a Christian and a Muslim?

There were Christians before there was a Bible.
There were no Muslims before there was the Qur'an.

The Qur’an is seen as holy. It is worshipped like an idol. It is an insult to let it to touch a floor. It has new revelations taught to one man. At best, it is like the tablets of the ten comandments. But it is meditations not written in in stone. It has different interpretations to different men at different times.

The Bible is just a book of letters. It is not holy; it is not an idol to be kissed or worshipped or kept off the floor like a living thing. The Bible is a record of past teachings taught by the Spirit of God always to two or three Holy men. But the Bible is as precious as any love letter we could receive from any loved one. "Love one another, as I have loved you" was taught by word of mouth from the Spirit of God before it was recorded. The teachings in the Bible are the same today as they were two thousand years ago and they will be the same two thousand years from now.
We could become a Christian, live all our lives as a Christian, die as a Christian, never having seen a Bible.
Do not get me wrong. The Bible is worthless without the Spirit of God.
But I’m not minimizing the value of the the Bible for guidance and answers if we let the Spirit of God do the teaching.
Matthew 7:7 says, “Keep asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep seeking, and you will find. Keep knocking, and the door will be opened to you.”
That doesn’t mean form a posse. Think about it and get a book.
"D"
I think we're in danger of treating the Bible like Aaron's calf when he Moses came down from the mountain. Too many churches kiss a Bible, bless it, hold it above their head like a firstborn offering. Inside it could be a Sears catalog and they wouldn't know it.
All these recent Muslim converts are confused westerners who've never picked up a Bible. They argue about what they think is in the Bible and they look for answers in the Qur'an. What do they expect to find merging on a one-way freeway?
Source(s)
Numbers 18:28 And Moses said, “This is how you will know that the Lord has sent me to do all these things that I have done—for I have not done them on my own."

John 14
8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.”
9 Jesus replied, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don’t know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words I speak are not my own, but my Father who lives in me speaks his word through me. 11 Just believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. Or at least believe me because of the work you have seen me do."
This discussion is "protestantism" but it doesn't change the Bible, or the Qur'an. Organized "Protestantism" is like the different books in the Bible and the bible studies that teach the Bible. They don't change the Spirit of God that's revealed in the Bible or that same Spirit of God that teaches the Christian.
As far as the Old Testament goes, they were "Jewish believers" who believed in the coming of a Messiah. "Christian" means to be "like Christ". The Jewish believers, like Saul, crucified Jesus because they didn't believe he was the Christ. You have to "know Christ" before you can be "like Christ".
The Old Testament believers trusted that a savior would come. The New Testament believer trusts the savior that did come.

Proofread please? Will give ten points!?

A Right to Live

Since the beginning of civilization, humankind has argued over whether or not the government should have the right to take a life away. The supporters of the death penalty, as well as the opposing side both have several valid opinions to support their stance. However, due to the immorality and cruelty of a sentencing that ultimately ends a life, the majority of mankind today oppose this form of punishment. For one, it is not a human right to take away the life of another human. People are destined to be born at a certain time-just as they are destined to die at a certain time. It has never been the responsibility of humans to alter fate. Furthermore, it is an unconstitutional violation of the rights of every citizen. It clearly states in the Declaration of Independence that everyone is granted the right of life and the pursuit of happiness. Citizens placed on death row ultimately have neither. Aside from that, many criminals seem to prefer the death penalty as it is often considered an easier punishment versus a life in prison. After all, life in prison is generally longer. The death penalty, an immoral and abominable form of punishment, should be outlawed.

However, when examining the death penalty, one can argue the side of morals and religion. A person's life is a precious gift given only to him or her to use once. It is something that is meant to be preserved-not something to be thrown away like a child might do to a broken toy. Taking away a life, even by death penalty, is murder and stealing at its worst. Just because it is legalized does not make it anymore acceptable. Life, “is not something we can just turn off when we feel someone is a danger” (Death Penalty). Besides that, the only one who has power to do something as important as taking a life is God himself. Christians and scholars alike can easily interpret this in the Bible when Jesus would not condone stoning an adulteress woman to death. According to the law at that time, a woman caught cheating on her husband immediately deserves the death penalty. However, Jesus challenges the villagers and, “said unto them, He that is without sin among you, life him first cast a stone at her” (King James Bible, John 8.7). When no one steps up, Jesus knows it is his place to cast the first stone as he is the only one without sin. Even he, the only one with the power to take away a life, refuses to do so. In addition to this, there are many other religious affiliations which proclaim to be pro-life. The Judaism faith, for example, is an indubitable pro-life supporter. According to this popular religion, the, “ Jewish tradition upholds the sanctity of life” (Death Penalty). Matter of fact, The Rabbinical Assembly urges all states to openly oppose the usage of death penalty as a means of punishment. The Jewish, along with most Christians, see the delinquency in the usage of death penalty.

However, upon analyzing this issue further, one can realize that it is a complete unconstitutional violation of every citizen’s rights. According to the Declaration of Independence, written by America’s founding fathers, every citizen automatically has the basic rights of life, liberty, and happiness. Thomas Jefferson, the main writer of the Declaration, added that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (The Declaration of Independence). While on death row, prisoners will have none of these basic, unalienable rights. In addition, the death penalty violates the eighth amendment which does not allow any cruel or unusual punishments to be carried out. The death penalty is considered by a large majority of people to be both cruel and unusual. Death, a severe punishment, is harsh and irrevocable. No matter how humane it is, the victim can suffer emotionally and physically. Unfortunately, there are, “a growing number of injections that have been mishandled or proven to be ineffective” (“Study”) and results in an agonizing and painful death. To illustrate this argument further, one only needs to look at the cases of mentally disabled prisoners. Many prisoners whom are mentally disabled have low intelligence and understanding. They often do not even realize that they did something wrong. Thus, killing them is a cruel violation. Some laws have been made to reduce killing the mentally disabled on death row, yet many are still convicted. For example, Jerome Bowden, a mentally disabled man, is put on death row and successfully murdered. Unfortunately, his intelligence quotient is so low that he can not even count to ten. Thus, how can he understand the full extent of his actions? Matter of fact, his mind, “just used to come and go” (Beyond Reason). There is no tolerable way to punish someone who does not understand the results of his or her own actions. Unfortunately, the usage of capital punishment not only takes away the ri

Peter or Christ? Is the Catholic Church "holy"... OR... is it just full of holes?

Was Peter the “rock” on which the church was built?

Matthew 16:18 (Jerusalem Bible) says: “I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church. And the gates of the underworld can never hold out against it.”

Notice in the context [verses 13, 20] that the discussion centers on the identity of JESUS (not Peter).

What was the belief of Augustine (who was viewed as a saint by the Catholic Church)? Notice what he wrote:

“In this same period of my priesthood, I also wrote a book against a letter of Donatus . . . In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’ . . . But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter.”
—The Fathers of the Church—Saint Augustine, the Retractations (Washington, D.C.; 1968), translated by Mary I. Bogan, Book I, p. 90.

Whom did the apostles Peter and Paul understand to be the “rock,” the “cornerstone”?

Acts 4:8-11 (Jerusalem Bible) says: “Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, addressed them, ‘Rulers of the people, and elders! . . . it was by the name of JESUS CHRIST the Nazarene, the one you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by this name and by no other that this man is able to stand up perfectly healthy, here in your presence, today. This is the stone rejected by you the builders, but which has proved to be the keystone [“cornerstone,” The New American Bible].’”

1 Pet. 2:4-8 (Jerusalem Bible) says: “Set yourselves close to him [the Lord Jesus Christ] so that you too . . . may be living stones making a spiritual house. As scripture says: See how I lay in Zion a precious CORNERSTONE that I have chosen and the man who rests his trust on it will not be disappointed. That means that for you who are believers, it is precious; but for unbelievers, the stone rejected by the builders has proved to be the KEYSTONE, a stone to stumble over, a rock to bring men down.”

Ephesians 2:20 (Jerusalem Bible) says: “You are part of a building that has the apostles and prophets for its foundations, and CHRIST JESUS himself FOR ITS MAIN CORNERSTONE.”

How is it that the Catholic Church claims and teaches as doctrine that PETER is the "rock" that the Church is built on, when the Bible shows and teaches that the "rock" the Church is built on is JESUS CHRIST (not Peter)?
~Edit~: Very nicely said "slcbtf". Kudos to you. Your statement is in agreement with the Bible.

Does Peter quote Isaiah, exactly (1 Peter 2:6 / Isaiah 28:16)?

My Bible footnotes indicate that the Scripture Peter is referring to is Isaiah 28:16

Isaiah 28:16 doesn't seem to be saying exactly what Peter says... is it?

---------

1 Peter 2:6

Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,

“Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”

-------

Isaiah 28:16

Therefore thus says the Lord GOD:

“Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation,
A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation;
Whoever believes will not act hastily.

--------

Of course, we should expect these *are* saying the same thing. So, what do we get if we put them next to each other?

"A tried stone" (OT Isaiah) = "A chief cornerstone"
"A precious cornerstone" (OT Isaiah) = "precious"
"a sure foundation" (OT Isaiah) = "elect"

----

So... if they are indeed saying the exact same thing, as we should expect... what does "a sure foundation" have to do with Peters uses of the word "elect".