...outer darkness II - a sons rebellion

Originally published at: ...outer darkness II - a sons rebellion - Full30 Blog

This is a follow up to a previous post that concerns the topic of Church authority

I thank all the participants in the Full30 forum who help me to discern even when they themselves work to refute, Iron Sharpens Iron.

This is all posted with intent it can be challenged, proved incorrect or sometimes able to be interpreted on one hand figurative and another literal, please feel free to do so.

Its commonly understood the very first sin was Satan’s rebellion to God, God being the Father or originator of everything

Therefore Adam and Eves sin would be the first sin of man, but, second behind Satan, and it was in rebellion to God, our Father, commanding what we eat (on not).

Genesis 3:3 …God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it…

Forward a thousand years to the great schism of 1054, a number of things contributed but At the heart of the break was the Roman pope’s claim to universal jurisdiction and authority.

Recently I’ve been doing some wordplay and in particular discussing the idea Simon was called Peter in the sense Peter means Father, that’s not new to the church but as a former protestant seeing the etymology of Father as PIE root *pəter- “father ” , Sanskrit pitar-, Greek pater, Latin pater and then thinking on how phonology with old English and before, are we possibly dealing with diluted speech?

Whan Peter, fader of the feith, At domesdai schal with him bringe Judeam, which thurgh his prechinge He wan.

J. Gower, Confessio Amantis (Fairfax MS.) v. l. 1904

That quote was spoken nearly 2k years AD and does not show father as Peter but shows father as fader, F was added to the dictionary in 1528.

Matthew 5:16 

οὕτως λαμψάτω τὸ φῶς ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὅπως ἴδωσιν ὑμῶν τὰ καλὰ ἔργα καὶ δοξάσωσιν τὸν πατέρα ὑμῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

Even so, let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.


Here πατήρ is patēr, so greek for father, and Matthew contains both Peter and Father written distinctly differently, so it seems really somewhat far-fetched to draw a conclusion on this word play at this point.

A frankly absurd number of English nouns come from Latin. It’s a good rule of thumb that if an English word is longer than two syllables, there’s a good chance it’s from Latin, Greek or both. Yes, both: Latin borrowed many Greek words, then English pillaged Latin.


So, dismiss entirely or diligently carry on?

2 Peter 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

Going with the ladder I came across an article from 2006 that indicated Petros=Firstborn.

I found it here https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2006-April/038355.html

when I returned later that day it was gone, but a copy is found here https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/lists.ibiblio.org/2006-April/038355.html

You can read it yourself but it starts with “We can finally put to rest the “Peter is the Rock of the Church” fallacy”

A strong rebuttal is found here https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/lists.ibiblio.org/2006-April/038357.html and in part states

In my judgment the matter has been raised again for purposes having more to do with “apologetics” than illumination of the Greek text of the NT

citation linked above

The article is odd as it seems to do more to serve the protestant view than defend the catholic view,

Thou art Petros (“firstborn” of the gospel of Christ) and upon this the kepha (The Truth) I will build my church.

I’ve encountered the protestant argument that Matthew 16:18 is intended to mean that Simon’s admission of faith is what the church is founded upon vs Simon being placed as head of the church, now it seems the arguments are one in the same, Simon’s admission makes him first in faith, as such father of the church.

And we know the term can be used that way:

Father 4.a.
Old English–
A person, esp. a ruler or superior, who provides protecting care like that of a father; a person who shows paternal kindness, or to whom filial reverence and obedience are due.


Forward 500 years to the reformation and we see protestants whom then again were “repudiating papal authority”

Protestant (n., adj.)

as a noun, in the broadest sense, “member or adherent of a Christian body descended from the Reformation of the 16c. and repudiating papal authority,” 


So far we have:

Satan rebels from God our Father
Adam and Eve follow suit
The Great Schism
The Protestant Reformation

All show a modus operandi , can we add more to the father/peter case?

The Latin root word ped and its Greek counterpart pod both mean “foot.”


So f and p were pretty much the same for both, with instances of both Peter and Father written in the same book.

I don’t speak Greek and it seems capitalization is not the same as in English:

Matthew 23:9 καὶ πατέρα μὴ καλέσητε ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, εἷς γάρ ἐστιν ὑμῶν ὁ πατὴρ ὁ οὐράνιος.
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.


If that is meant to convey not calling any man God, why is it not capitalized as Father in both instances?

Is capitalization the only difference between πατέρα and πατὴρ?

When I highlight either at https://www.greekbible.com/matthew/23/9 they both offer the same -father, Father or ancestor as options.

Using the highlights to translate Matthew 16:18 is no real help either.

see https://www.greekbible.com/matthew/16/18

or see .gif below

So Father as PIE root *pəter- “father ” , Sanskrit pitar-, Greek pater, Latin pater is not conclusive, Greek and Latin share the P4F trait, we have a modus operandi painted pretty well, and motive, Satan desires to rob God of us for himself, if you’ve not seen Nefarious I won’t spoil the other reason the directors put forth, but here’s a teaser.

Great movie in my opinion, and to me that scene reflects the protestant argument against the church, to be free of its dominance, to not be subject to it, of your father the devil?

And while its somewhat easy to put forth an argument for the church and its authority, Jesus’s own parable for instance:

Mark 13:34 For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.

As well as authority to remit sins

John 20:23  Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

As well the validation of penance

 John 21:17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

And authority to make rules

Matthew 18:18  Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Just a few to support, but the one I suspect most hated must be Romans XIII, condemning , with most frightening perhaps verse 5

Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

As how do you claim Sola scriptura and ignore it without hypocrisy, scripture says we’re to be subject.

1 Timothy 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

While possibly a low blow does next verse allows opponents to wrangle loose?

1 Timothy 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Are Roman Catholic Priests not forbidden to marry, celebate?

Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Celibacy seems to be metaphorical form of an eunuch, no? …and for the kingdom of heavens sake no less.

Surely not the stuff of the old testament Deuteronomy 23 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.

A question for all, anyone trying to reach anyone else of any religious persuasion, does it matter what we present if the gifts and calling of God are without repentance?

If Simon is a fisherman and the Church is a net, wouldn’t huge holes like a great schism and reformation seemingly be intentional?

If you don’t want to be caught you can swim on by?

Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

If your conscience is clear then it seems nothing is needed, go about your life until the end, but if the Pope causes you bitterness or trouble…

Hebrews 12:15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
Matthew 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.


Wait a cotton pickin minute…

Eve did the first two sins, all by herself, then lured Adam into sin.
Every woman has paid the price ever since then.


Well here goes first refute …lol respectfully though

God is the Father of almost everything…except one thing …
A Lie …

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.


Yes ,Sin came to all mankind through Adam as the head over Eves body due to God making him first and bringing her about from him God designed Him to rule over her. So had he refused the fruit she would have only been guilty . But Adam was the seed of all future mankind and we he ate the fruit he brought the curse of sin and death (spiritual and physical) upon himself and all future mankind .Then the advent of Christ to redeem and freely pay the penalty of death for all mankind gave mankind a way to have a renewed relationship with the Father. For he was sinless and perfect and able to lay down the perfect sacrifice for sin. So it was Adams fault . Adam loved her so much he joined Eve in the sin . …" thou shalt not eat " Women been getting Men in Trouble since the beginning :joy:


I read this a few times, it seems you imply Adam was making himself responsible for Eves sake?

In any account I’m reminded of Simon and the church

It seems like if you could accept the role of woman as submissive

That you could accept the church

Looking at Romans XIII verse 1 we see to be subject to the power ordained

which here as a verb means church vs Caesar or other

c. 1300, ordeinen, “to appoint or admit to the ministry of the Church,”

verse 2 refers to the danger of resisting the ordinance

c. 1300, ordinance, “an authoritative direction, decree, or command”

verse 3 explains we should not fear for its to our good

It reminds me of what you wrote

The church has a job to do

We find more from Jesus about “minister” and “authority” here

Minister as a noun

“an agent acting for a superior, one who acts upon the authority of another,”

and a verb
to perform religious rites, provide religious services…render service, aid, or medicine; furnish means of relief or remedy

So the man is the woman’s minister as the church is the mans minister.

Making the relationship between the two all the more important, including fidelity

faithfulness, devotion

This may help to relate Jesus words to the church of Ephesus

and subsequent command to repent and do the first works, first works, what is ordained…sins of omission… not doing something key?

That would necessitate a need for keys

keys given to “thee”, a singular term, like a chair set apart for the holder of some position of dignity or authority, like the Seat of Peter?

If we’re invited to a wedding should we sit where we like, take over what was ordained?


So I had mentioned briefly a one week voyage to another online forum, for research purposes which was true, it was based upon the fact I can not positively say the wordplay above has any real significant meaning beyond peculiar coincidence

As a Catholic and patriot I didn’t expect I’d have a lot of time to do my research and I was correct


To sum that incident up I offer

as I found that forum to be UN/EU/WEF approved and never minded pointing it out, don’t converse with others while standing in line, don’t offer anything negative etc etc :face_vomiting:

While I’d like to see some members here clean up their style its preferable to hypocritical

Anyhow, I did come back with what I sought for, a devils advocate/antithesis to my thesis

BTW the Church used to have such a role

Anyhow one member I ran across put forth a metaphor I really enjoyed, it was multipart but the take away for me was

A painting is not a photograph. By that I meant is photograph is a literal record of something. A painting is an interpretation with the elements in the picture selected and composed to give more information than the bare picture. In the same way the writers of scripture were not just journalists recording an event but they selected the elements they present to give more information than was on the surface. We have to look below that surface and consider each verse carefully.

In my case the painting is

And I attempted to show certain characteristics of that painting as Peter meaning Father albeit in an abstract method with wordplay

What I was able to get from this painting metaphor was a new perspective and I wrote it out as

If we ignore the meaning of Peter, consider it a nickname, and read "upon this rock " to understand that only by the Fathers revealing then we can understand how the Church is built and maintained, yet a puzzling item is how people are considered “saved” today, which contrary to “for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven”, contrary why?

Contrary as we go two by two and teach, someone hears and confesses and we deem them saved, revealed by flesh and blood, not from our Father.

The common protestant doctrine is that flesh and blood reveals (people preaching the bible) that Jesus is the Son of God contrary to the words of Jesus in Matthew 16:18 and the understanding I’ve been given (by protestants) that Peter is not the Father of the Church but that the preceding verse 17 explained it only to mean faith as revealed by God and admitted by a sinner.


Simon did not have anyone tell him Jesus was Christ and the Son of God, so how can we if thats how it works?

Sorry guys, no T-shirts or keychains ( reading I was banned by Christians) to hand out while I went whoring on another forum, just that painting metaphor and my perspective, I know I know :noose:


It was the Adam was making himself responsible for Eves Sake … He literally was her head (boss) He it is was who had the chance to refuse to fall by eating the fruit . But he loved her so much he fell too

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
1 Peter:3:1-7


So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Nothing in that verse mentions a human being preaching it ,but as we see from verse 14.
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Now I know of many instances were a person mearely read the Bible and gave their heart to Jesus Christ.
Hearing can be defined as only the physical aspect or the spiritual . Hearing yes does come from the person hearing the preached word . But if the heart is receptive it can hear spiritually without a preacher.

That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Hence why Jesus taught in parables because they could hear the Gospel spoke in the synagogue from The Book of Isaiah and not understand it cause they did not have spiritual discernent to understand.
Even Jesus read straight from Isaiah . As it is one of the oldest books in the Bible.

And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph’s son?


I’m thinking you missed my point, maybe?

Which is we are the bride and required to be subject vs protesting

A good reply, how then can protestants use Matthew 17-18 to say Simon is not head of the church?

Remember the faith he exhibited is how the reformation is justified.

flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee
but my Father which is in heaven

Faith, not a preacher

You ask the right questions

But how do they exist with the reformations claim Jesus did not appoint Simon as


As porter (with keys) one who has charge of a door or gate;

There are many servants, but only one porter.


Anciently they had their sheepfolds within the outer gates of their houses, for the greater safety of their flocks, so that none could come to them the right way.

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Even Peter stated we must first , Repent , then be baptized and we would receive the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is the Porter .
They must enter by the door of a regular ordination, and to such the porter will open the Spirit of Christ will set before them an open door.
Without the Spirit you dont see the door . Those “spiriteyes” will reveal it to you.


Porter and Comforter are not synonymous terms

But I like your description

Reminds me of the role of the church

the gates of hell shall not prevail against it

Now your thinking that

In a sense that’s not something to argue, Mary is said to be the gate to heaven

But again, the terms are not synonymous , and saying so does make you sound a bit Catholic :face_with_hand_over_mouth:

1 Like

Well, I aint Catholic lol… but I have been reading and studying the Bible and Preaching the Bible for nearly 34 yrs.
Lets see this also tells us more .
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.


No but there’s hope

if you study the history there’s only one thing that divides Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Reformers, its rebellion and repudiation of papal authority

Under that authority we do find more…

What other authority (aside from RCC) do you find communion, commonly known as bread and wine, found as literal flesh and blood?

Science works to refute there is any change in the bread and wine, but science is short one element in its studies, faith.

The PDF link below comes form a source that promotes a one world religion

yet it only states a history, one that I can’t see used to promote a one world religion except to say doing so would copy an existing religion, so a basis for the idea perhaps :man_shrugging:

Anyhow do you find the history in error?


I never read it as I dont read such" garbageif you will" but to conment on your comment I am many other conservative Christians feel and have always felt thatvit will be Islam that is trying to position itself as the “One World Religion” . It is not onlybpart of their brainwashing “teaching” but it is written in their false religion documents. They see Israel anf America as the two objects that must be overthrown in order to conquer all world power. They do not focus on small countries. They seek to overthrow current powers and use those to wipe out and conquer the lesser powers. Essentially decapitating the head of the snake.

None, which make me wonder why they feel that faith alone is bot what it is all about. We partake of the sacraments when we accept Jesus as Lord of our life. To constantly feel as though the sacraments must be transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ …“literally transformed”. Jesus already offered up his Body and shed his precious Blood and laid down his life once. Why must a person feel as though he must make this sacrifice available every week to them in a literal transubstantiation ?

To me is seems to be akin to apostasy in that Jesus must be constantly left in a broken and bruised and bleeding state.

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Jesus went through all of that once, which is all it took.

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Explain why it isn’t working for you ? Did it not do it for you ?Is it not doing it for Catholics in general ? If it did it for you and for other Catholics and you accepted that sacrifice once then why in your mind must it not just be a supper of rememberance instead of transubstantiation.


Those two questions are fair and I believe I can sum up easily for you,

Verse 15 Jesus instructed Simon to feed His lambs and both 16 & 17 to feed His Sheep

The act of feeding as you see is a verb and means to;
Feed v. “nourish, give food to, sustain, foster”

Another verb, eat “consume food; devour, consume,”

Which we are commanded to do (this do ye)

remembrance means memory, awareness or consciousness, i.e. discern what it means

Now, please consider why God forgives us

It is due to His Son, not us, His blood, read John 6:56 carefully, dwelleth in me, and I in him

So what is the actual transubstantiation here?

dwelleth in me, and I in him

God can not be in the presence of sin, Jesus is cleansing us of our sins when He feeds us,
He propitiates so we can be with God

Now see if you can

If Satan wants to keep us from God our willingly rejecting being fed means job well done mission accomplished,

1. Matthew 8:12 – But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

As to your comment on

That describes Protestantism

apostasy “renunciation, abandonment or neglect of established religion,”

The common thinking (to my understanding) of Hebrews 6 is that of people who would openly abandon Christ with hate in their heart



So I am getting the "feel " here that Catholics dont belive in the eternal security of the soul.
To qoute that verse and use it in sucb manner makes me feel as though Catholics feel like taking these sacraments weekly keeps them in Christ Jesus.

Yes those who were among other true believers seen the power of God maybe participated in an exorcism or seen the blessings of God on others but yet never intended to convert but turn on God and use information gained to speak against Christians …ie Judas he was and is probably the most well know apostate. Others are mentioned like Alexander who was either a silversmith or some such craft. Who turned against Paul because Pauls Church establishments were cutting into his idol making for the other false religions.

No not quite as those who as you say protested the Catholic church wete in fact children of God.
An apostate is one who is a protender a hypocrite. Someone who was basically a wolf in sheeps clothing.


Matthew 8:12 – But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.


Children of the kingdom, remember, it is at hand, that means now

Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


Those who confess and do mighty works in His name, yet He knew them not, how does He know you?

He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

To save you the wonder its a great feeling, confusing to watch from the outside that’s for sure, but enough for everyone in the world if you care to accept the invite.

Not according to the definition posted

I’d think false is the term for those

denying the Lord that bought them, imagine if that means to deny His established authority

resisteth the power

Power n.
“efficacy; control, mastery, lordship, dominion, ability or right to command or control; legal power or authority; authorization; military force, an army,”

damnable heresies

Heresy n.
“doctrine or opinion at variance with established standards” a taking or choosing for oneself




Where does it say they confessed him .?? They were merely members of a country a kingdom.
Lets lay context to these verses.
And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

Israel was many times referred to as a kingdom and here the Kingdom of Israel is being specifically talked about I believe along with heavenly kingdom. Because an outsider a Roman Centurion is being spoken too.
So Jesus was telling him some of his own people of the Israelite Kingdom were headed for Hell. One has to ask if they are already there why are they then rejected to hell?? Because they didn’t “set down” they did not partake . A bunch of apostates ??


How do you interpret Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord?

Are they not in fact confessing He is Lord?

Babylon as well, but we’re discussing Heaven here, and it is “at hand” it is now

Whose example is the greatest of faith Jesus had seen in Israel

Why not just heal as when He’s witnessed others of faith?

Why the expression of how this Romans faith was seen as the greatest?

He exhibited the very faith the church exists on,

Delegation of authority.

A superior gives command and it is followed from the head to the foot, no one member stands apart from the body

Yet do protestants not reject the very head of the church, repudiate the Popes authority?

Eastern church also?

The answer undeniably is yes.

I watched with glee
While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the gods they made

Watched with glee, guess what?

Glee n.
“music” and “mockery,”

Hi still is right now at this moment, but look around, he knows his time is short and things are escalating, ramping up quickly, we must awake