₦airaland Forum

Mickey02:
this passage speak about everything.
these are trying moments and the church needs the strength from all her members to remain firm. let's strengthen our faith and not diminished it.

yes, the passage speaks about everything, that is the reason I shared it. Are we willing to pray and act until there is a change on this issue and all are held accountable.

solite3:
I don't do dogma or creed, who are the church fathers? are they greater than the bible? even the teaching of Paul the greatest apostle was scrutinized with scripture.
heresy is any doctrine that is not in conformity with scripture of which mary mother of God is one.


go through my posts and see my stand.

you are the one who have been shouting about the church fathers now you suddenly don't know them.


be sincere with yourself.

brocab:
As usual you blame me, because I retrieve my information from the net-someone is wrong-and somehow I don't believe it's the stories you produce! Catholic's are more focus upon defending Rome, then they are defending Christ!
I retrieve my information of line, I search the net over and over, to see if the stories are true, sadly for you, everybody seems to have the same pinon about their searches, they spend a lot of time for nothing-wasting time-if you were always right uben.

Uben the above statement is not dealt with-the Catholic Church holds some pretty unsafe matters still to arise out of its hidden darkest ages. Catholic's are knowing as law breakers-they were always hidden under Romes agenda's, Rome has a long journey still-this will take some time before this is completely dealt with-you blame outside of Rome-how can that be, since you believe everything started with Rome from the beginning.
The Catholic Church isn't right-they have a lot to answer for, and it doesn't matter where I go to search the net, credits are everywhere..

yeah, you go on and on about the Catholic church as though you are obsessed but the question remains,


what are you guys doing to handle the poo in your church?

budaatum:
He's all over the place!

that is the problem, the worst is that he is referencing the hypostatic union, if he knew what that is he wouldn't mention it.

herich:
If you can't back up your stories with quotations from bible, don't quote me again.

if you don't know the passages I'm referring to maybe you should quit nairaland and study your Bible more.


It is a shame where a Christian claims not to know the components of something as basic as the ark.

doyinbaby:
tell where Catholic church got that rosary from..... where is purgatory in your Bible........did Jesus ever pray to Mary..,..is hail holy queen biblical....... you will leave Roman catholic when God open your eyes

all the above are answerable if you open a thread for them

solite3:
a woman nurturing and taking care of a baby doesn't make it her own.
she can take care and nature the child of someone else but doesn't mean it's her own.

your are just going round in circles
ask yourself why Jesus always call Mary woman instead of mother.
Mary may carry Jesus in her womb and nature her but it doesn't make her mother of God.

so you agree that Mary nurtured God in human flesh, do you also agree that God took flesh in Mary's womb? That Mary bore God in human flesh for 9 months? that Mary birth God in human flesh?

solite3:
I don't follow men's doctrine/ creed but the infallible word of God
there is no where in the bible Mary was called mother of God no teaching like that.
this and many more doctrine of rcc where from pagans.

you were the person jumping up and down shouting church fathers, church fathers, you finally found out that they don't support your teaching and actually declared it to be total heresy and now you are back to where we started. So please answer my question.






so you will agree that God took flesh in Mary's womb, Mary carried God in human flesh for nine months, Mary gave birth to God in human flesh and nurtured him?

But you won't agree that Mary is the mother of God?


If you don't agree with the earlier phrases please tell me the ones you agree with and the ones you disagree with

Luke 22:31-32 “Simon, Simon, behold, satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

doyinbaby:
one day I benedictus will leave catholic church

sorry dear, with the church fathers I'll say, I believe in the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church.


Not going anywhere

herich:
Just look at what you're saying. Let someone else interpret what you just reasoned now.
If people accused me praying before a statue, which is actually true.
So I might come up and defend myself with the logic that, they don't know my heart.
Meaning, as I'm making pronouncement, before a statue, my heart is in connection with God.
I don't think anyone will believe/agree with me.

You see me praying in front of a statue? What is new? The entire Israelites in the Bible prayed in front of the ark with its statues, in fact Joshua is recorded as prostrating before the statues while praying? Are they guilty of idolatry?

You guys seem to have the misguided erroneous notion that anyone who is praying in front of something is worshipping the object.

solite3:
the divine nature didn't change you can argue that with the church fathers.
Jesus as God didn't change, so never had a mother.

you can also argue with the church fathers who clearly call Mary mother of God, like to see them

solite3:
yea, but Mary is not the mother of God

so you will agree that God took flesh in Mary's womb, Mary carried God in human flesh for nine months, Mary gave birth to God in human flesh and nurtured him?

But you won't agree that Mary is the mother of God?


If you don't agree with the earlier phrases please tell me the ones you agree with and the ones you disagree with

solite3:
funny enough not even the church father's creed called mary mother of God the son.
going by logic david from whom mary came must the bear the title forefather of God right? but Jesus disagrees with you he is not the son of David, that automatically mean he is not the son of mary.

so, there is nothing like mother of God neither father of God

so you didn't read conceived of the holy spirit, born of the virgin Mary.

solite3:
why Mary is not the mother of God

In the 4th century, when Constantine the Great appointed himself Pontifex Maximus – supreme head – of the Christian Church, pagans and their pagan beliefs began infiltrating Christendom. Among the most influential of the new “converts” were those from the Mediterranean and Middle East areas where worship of the “Great Mother Goddess” and the “Divine Virgin” had existed since Babylon. According to Britannica, these groups:
“….found within the Christian Church a new possibility of expression in the worship of Mary as the virgin mother of God, in whom was achieved the mysterious union of the divine Logos with human nature. ” (Britannica,
Christianity : The doctrine of the Virgin Mary and holy Wisdom.)
By the end of the 4th century, Mary the mother of Jesus, known prior to the advent of Constantine as the Christ-bearer, (Greek
Christotokos, ) was being referred to as the God-bearer, ( theotokos .) Thus was born the doctrine of Mary, mother of God, a title foreign to Scripture where she is called only the mother of Jesus. At first, this matter drew little attention, but in AD 428, Anastasius, a presbyter in the church at Constantinople, raised objections to the theotokos appellation, and thereby originated a controversy that continues to exist here in the 21 st century.
Anastasius was immediately supported in his position by Nestorius, bishop of the Constantinople church, who believed that the
theotokos title adversely affected the fact of our Lord’s full humanity. Cyril, powerful bishop of Alexandria, motivated as much by envy of Constantinople’s standing among the eastern churches as he was by the theological aspects of the controversy, joined battle over the issue with Nestorius, outflanked him at the AD 431 First Council of Ephesus, and succeeded in confirming Mary as the mother of God. Nestorius, falsely accused of separating Christ’s two natures – human and divine – subsequently was excommunicated, then sacked as bishop of Constantinople by the emperor, Theodosius II, who had appointed him in the first place. He died in exile, but the controversy lives on. Is Mary the mother or Jesus? Or is she, a created being, the mother of eternal God?
The Roman Catholic Church and certain mainline churches that split from Rome during or following the Reformation, declare unequivocally that Mary is, in fact, the mother of God. Those historically and currently who oppose this teaching are accused, as was Nestorius, of “dividing Christ” into an “earthly Jesus” and a “heavenly Jesus,” thereby denying the essential unity of our Lord’s two natures. But that is merely an unproved and unprovable accusation. Christ, in fact, had two distinct natures fused into a single human body, a mystery quite as hidden to man as three distinct persons comprising a single Godhead. To say that Mary was the mother of Jesus only is no more a division of Christ’s two natures than acknowledging Christ as the only begotten Son of the Father is a division of the Godhead. Both are mysteries akin to that of a virgin being with child allegedly conceived by that same unborn child because He is a member of the Godhead. Shades, in other words, of the Babylonian “Mystery” religion.
In a document entitled, The Mother of Jesus , published by the Catholic Information Service of the Knights of Columbus, justification for calling Mary the mother of God is capsulized in the following two paragraphs:
In the natural and normal process of human reproduction, when both maternal and paternal functions unite, God simultaneously creates the human soul which enlivens the fecundated ovum in the woman’s womb, and thus a human person is conceived. It is always an individual’s human nature – a person who possesses human nature. (Emphasis added.)
It matters not that the woman has no part in the production of the spiritual element
(directly created by God) in the human nature of the person she conceives. It suffices that she has supplied the bodily substance which goes into the constitution of human nature possessed by the person, that she rightly acquires the title of mother. (Emphasis added.)
No one disputes the fact that Mary is the mother of the human Jesus even though she was not the “supplier” of His human soul. Nor is there any question that the man Christ Jesus was created human in body, soul and spirit. What is disputed is the extension of the title “mother” to a divine nature that eternally existed and was not created in the womb of the virgin. A mother is only the mother of what originates within her womb. The second person of the blessed trinity did not originate in Mary’s body. He is without beginning – has always existed – and has no mother.
“Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.) (Psalm 90:2) “Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.” (Psalm 93:2)
“But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him,” (Psalm 103:17) “Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting: and let all the people say, Amen. Praise ye the LORD.” (Psalm 106:48)
That Jesus had two natures – one created and one eternal - united in a single human body is beyond question. That only one of those two natures originated in Mary’s womb also is beyond question. And why she cannot then be called the mother of God finds an exact parallel in Christ’s relationship to King David.
“He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David :” (Luke 1:32) “And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?” (Matt 12:23) “And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David ; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.” (Matt 15:22) “And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of
David.” (Matt 20:30) “And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David : Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.” (Matt 21:9)
In these Scriptures it is clearly established that the nation of Israel expected their Messiah to derive – as prophesied - from the tribe of Judah and the house of David, thereby attributing fatherhood of the Messiah to David in accordance with their method of reckoning descent. But David cannot be called the father of God because of his relationship to the man Christ Jesus. Our Lord Himself preempted any possibility of that erroneous belief.
“While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.” (Matt 22:42-46) Parallel accounts of this episode are found in Mark 12: 35-37, and Luke 20:41-44.
In these Scriptures, our Lord has done what Roman Catholic apologists say may not be done. He has clearly drawn a line between the human nature and the eternal nature of Christ. He has clearly established the fact that David is NOT the father of God, because he is NOT the father of the second person of the blessed trinity. He has clearly shown this distinction of natures to be a mystery – one the Jews of His day could not comprehend any better than the Roman Catholics or Christians of the 21st century. This mystery of the two fused but separate natures manifest in Christ finds another reference in the following excerpt from the Gospel of John. When confronted by the Jews and constrained to identify himself, John the Baptist’s response included this interesting disclosure: “For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him .” (John 3:34) Certainly the Holy Spirit could not have been given to the Second Person of the trinity for He is part of that trinity. So the Holy Spirit that was given without measure was given only to the
man Christ Jesus.
It stands to reason, then, that like King David – to whom fatherhood ONLY of the
man Christ Jesus is attributed - Mary is the Mother ONLY of the man Christ Jesus. To prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, let us insert Mary’s name in place of King David’s in the previously cited Scriptures:
“While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of MARY . He saith unto them, How then doth MARY call him Lord, saying, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. (Luke 1:46, 47) If
MARY then call him Lord, how is he her son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.”
To insist that Mary is Christotokos only and not theotokos is not to separate Jesus into a “heavenly Jesus” and an “earthly Jesus” as Roman Catholicism contends. It is merely recognizing what Jesus Himself made clear, that David was not the father of God, and by parallel reasoning, Mary was His earthly mother only, and not a Goddess or Queen of Heaven worthy of the title mother of God.
Because the Second Person of the blessed trinity is an eternal being having neither a beginning nor an ending, it was the man Christ Jesus who suffered as the second Adam on Calvary and died for the sins of the world. The Second Person of the trinity did not die, cannot die or be put to death. And it’s the man Christ Jesus – not the Second Person of the trinity - who is said Scripturally to be the one mediator between God and man. (1 Tim 2:5) He who is eternal, who could not and cannot die, could not be, and was not, born of the virgin.
Conclusion: Jesus Christ the man is the son of Mary. The Second Person of the Trinity is her God, not her son, for He did not originate in her womb.

Funny enough, even before Constantine was born, Christians were already calling Mary mother of God

So every thing above is based on false premise



Irenaeus

“The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God” (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus

“[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]” (Discourse on the End of the World 1 [A.D. 217]).

Gregory the Wonderworker

“For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David” (Four Homilies 1 [A.D. 262]).

“It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, ‘Hail, full of grace!’” (ibid., 2).

solite3:
I think you need a biology class being a mother goes more than giving birth, motherhood is a biological term except you mean adoption.

when you conceive, Bear for 9 months, birth and nurture a child, then you certainly are his mother. That is what Mary is

ichuka:
Luke1:34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that "HOLY THING"which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Do you why the THING FORMED IN HER WAS CALLED HOLY?
Lol
Bro,I no fit argue with you abeg.
My mum and siblings are still catholic and I truly believe some in your meetings are truly saved.

you can argue all day.


The Bible is clear, Mary conceived in her womb and bore her son Jesus, she was not an incubator.

brocab:
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND INDULGENCES -- 4/08/15
Today's selection -- from God's Bankers by Gerald Posner. One of the scandalous practices of the Catholic church was the sale of "indulgences" to raise money. Indulgences allowed Catholics to buy forgiveness for their sins with cold, hard cash.
Most remember that indulgences were one of the primary reasons Martin Luther made the cataclysmic decision to leave the Catholic church and start the "Protestant" movement.
However, few realize that indulgences were used by the Catholic church as a primary source of revenue for over a thousand years, and that the practice did not end as a result of Luther's protests:
The cost of running the church's kingdom while maintaining the profligate lifestyle of one of Europe's grandest courts pressured the Vatican always to look for ways to bring in more money.
Taxes and fees levied on the Papal States paid most of the empire's basic expenses. The sales of produce from its agriculturally rich northern land as well as rents collected from its properties throughout Europe brought in extra cash.
But over time that was not enough to fuel the lavish lifestyles of the Pope and his top clerics.
The church found the money it needed in the selling of so-called indulgences, a sixth-century invention whereby the faithful paid for a piece of paper that promised that God would forgo any earthly punishment for the buyer's sins.
The early church's penances were often severe, including flogging, imprisonment, or even death. Although some indulgences were free, the best ones -- promising the most redemption for the gravest sins -- were expensive.
The Vatican set prices according to the severity of the sin and they were initially available only to those who made a pilgrimage to Rome.
So they did sell indulgence to the people-with hard earned cash! They may not be selling indulgence any longer, but I am sure they are selling something else to match up the differences..Uben try to understand your Church is on the firing line-your Church had been pushing out the rubbish for so long, it is not the Church itself, it's Catholic's that can't handle the feed backs it really deserves. It's not the Church-its people-that brought the Church on it's knee's, religious people that steals kills and destroys God's chosen..
I did solve it, I left the Church-just like Martin Luther did leaving the Catholic Church, Martin Luther and I know since man had bowed down before Satan-the doors opened for corruption to begin-and the money became gods refusing the truth.

as usual your story veers from the truth, sins were never attached to specific sums as you claim and the abuse of overexagerating the monetary aspect was confined to Germany not the entire church.



Yet the abuse was dealt with, what are you guys doing about your own

Slimsly100:
I am a staunch catholic myself bruh.
But then on your take on the matter, issorite

you must be a staunch badly catechisied Catholic ignorant of what your Church teaches


From the church catechism


1616 This is what the Apostle Paul makes clear when he says: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her," adding at once: "'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church."110

1617 The entire Christian life bears the mark of the spousal love of Christ and the Church. Already Baptism, the entry into the People of God, is a nuptial mystery; it is so to speak the nuptial bath.111 which precedes the wedding feast, the Eucharist. Christian marriage in its turn becomes an efficacious sign, the sacrament of the covenant of Christ and the Church. Since it signifies and communicates grace, marriage between baptized persons is a true sacrament of the New Covenant

Slimsly100:
I am a staunch catholic myself bruh.
But then on your take on the matter, issorite

you must be a staunch badly catechisied Catholic ignorant of what your Church teaches

wowcatty:
If he loves her they should meet each other halfway or marry their pastors.

leaving his church isn't half way for a Catholic, that is all the way.

solite3:
yes the human nature and his divine nature were united in one person but God has no mother, motherhood is a biological function not applied to the divine nature.
in this way yes Mary gave birth to the God-man but she is not the mother of God.

the divine word of God became flesh, biology is thus applied to his person.

herich:
There is no way people will intentionally accuse of paganism, if you people don't engaged in any form idolatry.
Remember, you have people as neighbours, friends, brothers, cousins, they observes you guys as well.
Nollywood also uses Catholic church, most times in their movies and people watches these movie also.

if a lie is repeated often people assumed it is true. That is what happens in this case.


You can't accuse someone of idolatry unless you know his heart. I sometimes kneel in front of my Bible and pray, does that mean I am worshipping the book?

Not true, you don't go to court first and later Church nope.

Instead Catholic marriage is recognized as legal by any court. No need to go for court marriage.

Shugavee:
union of Christ?? Ur are obviously a fanatic,,, traditional marriage is even more important than church wedding,, court wedding holds more ground than them all!!So if a new member comes to ur church married they will do wedding again or be rejected? Or maybe married in another church nko? This doesn’t follow in real life... this is just up in ur head!! N it doesn’t make sense. The union of Christ is a man n woman coming together as one ,, with or without church wedding if they r Christians that union is blessed already!! U forgot the marriage Jesus did his first miracle? That was even in the Jewish time , did Jesus condemn the marriage.. most of u fanatics think carry church for head makes u a Christian!! Which church wedding did Adam n eve do?? They didn’t even do any marriage !!

Read up my dear: eph

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; 26 that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.



Marriage in the Christian setting goes beyond what tradition and law says, the marriage of husband and wife is the mirror of Christ and the church.... This is why Christian marriage is distinct from traditional or court marriage because by faith it embodies and takes on a powerful mystery.

Jews had marriage, tradition has marriage even court too, all those marriage comes with a provision for divorce, Christian marriage doesn't, it is different.

If you are a Jew as Jesus was and still practice Judaism then marry as a Jew, if you are a traditional person go for tradition, I am a Christian and marriage means more to me than it did a Jew, a court, and tradition.

Anas09:
The Devil has no hand in this. It's all their fault. They don't know what the Church is, if they do, they'd know that the Church is a whole human being comprising of body parts with The Lord as the Head.

Christian denominations are just different parts of the body of Christ. the Hand can say to the leg you are not part of me. It's only foolishness that will make an eye cast off a mouth.

If we understand that in our physical bodies we have Cells, we will know that Winners Chapel is a cell in the body of Christ. Christ Embassy, Redeem, Assemblies of God, Deeper Life, are all Cells in the same body but all of us unite under one Head. The Lord Jesus, then we'll stop this foolishness of you belong to Paul, i belong to Apollos.

the devil has a hand in it, this is the factions that the Bible condemned as works of the flesh.

There were no denominations in Christianity

wowcatty:
I don't blame your girl, Catholic church is scary now and pope Francis will soon resign. But you shouldn't leave your church for her own. What people do is, you both leave your churches and start going to a brand new church just as you both have to move out of where you live and get a new house together.

a Catholic who won't attend his wife's church, do you think he will forsake his church to a brand new place where he doesn't even know their theology?

Shugavee:
u are so dumb!! Read history fool

it is you who seem ignorant, the Catholic church has been there since the first century, Protestantism began 1500 years later, Pentecostalism began 1900 years later

Shugavee:
Had to google it.. he is right

you didn't read well, this is what your link says


"movement has its roots in the late 19th century, a time of mounting indifference to traditional religion. Denominations that were known for revivalistic fervour became subdued. Emotional modes of religious expression—enthusiastic congregational singing, spontaneous testimonies, prayer in unison, and extemporaneous sermons on simple biblical themes by lay preachers—gave way to ordered, formal worship services that were conducted by “reverends,” ministers trained in homiletics (preaching skills), who were influenced by higher biblical criticism. Lecture centres and elegant sanctuaries replaced camp meetings and crude wood-frame tabernacles"




The Pentecostal movement has its origins in the late 19th century, Pentecostals simply enjoy claiming the apostles, by the 19th century about 200 years ago all the apostles were dead

Slimsly100:
What are you guys stressing about sef?
Since u guys luv urselves DAT much, why not just do court wedding and proceed with ur individual spiritual lives. The race na individual thing abeg, I know an uncle who attends a different church from his wife's and they both love themselves and are at peace with each other.
It's only a matter of understanding

Catholics won't recognise court wedding. Marriage is the mystery that reflects the wondrous Union of Christ and his Church in perpetual covenant. In Catholicism that is a distinct Christian matter that a court wedding doesn't even come close to mimicking.

Joshzion:
I can't also marry a catholic, I'm a Christian from a pentecostal church. Catholic doctrine is just too boring and somehow to me

that means you wouldn't have married at all if you were born between 60ad and 1880ad, because all the Christian churches from the beginning till 1500 were similar to Catholic church, Protestant church began in the 16th century and their worship style then was similar to that of Catholics, Pentecostalism began 200 years ago, more like a recent movement.


You have to recheck your understanding of Boring

LastDays777:
There is no right religion. Jesus didn't create religion. It was man.

not true.

James 1:27

Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation: and to keep one's self unspotted from this world


Jesus himself established a church, his own religion with the power to judge cases


Matt 18

If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Matt 16:17



Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”