[Tj3]

All:
I've given up trying to respond to all the posts which are, based on the content, very decidedly Protestant in nature.

I , for one, am not protestant.

It would simply take more time then I have to respond to all of these. Even still, I'd like to point out the condescending nature of these responses.

You raised the points and now you are getting responses.

Tj3 asks, “Why do Roman Catholics not read what has been posted and keep just asking the same thing over and over?”

The question presumes that if a Protestant or Non-Denominational response isn't given it's not a correct and therefore nonresponsive.

No, that is not true. Once again, I am not protestant. But I note that over and over again there are a set of passages that just keep getting quoted and when the context is shown, there is no discussion in response. The Roman Catholic response is to simply repeat the same reference once, twice, 15 or more times again without even addressing the rebuttal which has been raised.

Perhaps if there was some respectful acknowledgment of the response and some respectful interaction, we could avoid wasting everyone's time. Rather what we get is the arrogant quotes of what "The Church" has decreed.

Tj3 after reciting Matt 12: 31-32 presumes that the Catholic faith “speaks against belief.” Further, he suggests that His Holiness the Pope is “pagan.”

You really like to mis-represent don't you? Because of past problems with this, I asked you to provide the actual quote, but again you do not, but rather dishonestly claim that I said something that I did not. Here is how the discussion actually went:

----------------YOU SAID------------------------
The order of bishops is the successor to the college of the apostles in their role as teachers and pastors, and in it the apostolic college is perpetuated. Together with their head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never apart from him, they have supreme and full authority over the universal Church
----------------END QUOTE FROM YOU--------

Note the arrogant attitude, that ONLY the leadership of your denomination has authority over the "universal church". Now, here is what I said in response.

----------------MY RESPONSE------------------
Just quoting documents from your denomination is not going to convince those who hold to God's word.

BTW, do you know that the title "Pontiff" is the title of the priest in the pagan Roman religion that Constantine amalgamated with the churches to create the Roman Catholic denomination?
----------------END OF MY RESPONSE--------

Note that I did not, as you claim, says that the current pope is pagan.that was simply not honest. We never evene discussed the topic - if you would like, we can, and we can discuss the relative merits of the teachings of the current papacy, but until we do, please be honest in how you treat what I and others say.

Maybe you would like to go back and read what I said and see if you can come up with an honest rebuttal.

Then you mis-represent me further by saying...

” [What amazes me here is that this is that even a Protestant can call the Roman Catholic Church “pagan” when it was that same Church that preserved the sacred Scripture for 1500 years, passing off to the non-Catholics to be misinterpreted, and continued maintaining them this past 500 years]

Once again, I am not a protestant - how many times do I have to tell you this?

- If the RCC preserved the scriptures, then why did they add the Bible to the Index of Forbidden books?
- Why did they add books to the Bible?

Peter Wilson recites Romans 10 in such a way as to presume that Catholics follow the Old Testament Law.

There was a post on here, I believe from you, that used OT law to support the belief in purgatory. If you are going to base your beliefs on it, expect to get a response to it.

Sndbay seems to be indicating that his own scriptural interpretation outweigh the Words of Christ; Matt:16: 18 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. And, with finesse I might add, eventually comes to call Catholics (or just me, I'm not sure which) hypocrites.

I note that when Catholics want to claim that this was about Peter, they quote from verse 18, thus cutting out the context:

Matt 16:15-19
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
NKJV

There is no way to read this as referring to Peter. Throughout scripture (and I will give references if you want them, the Rock is always God (usually directly related to Jesus). The word used for Peter is Stone, and scripture even tells us this:

John 1:42
42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone).
NKJV

If you want to discuss this passage further, let's do so.

While in part I understand, I still expected much more civility.

Luke 6:41-42
41 And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the plank in your own eye? 42 Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother's eye.
NKJV

Wow, I must say I'm amazed that Christians would shanghai Scripture to express their contempt for the Roman Church. Isn't it the Protestant Rule of Faith that Scriptural interpretation is private and guided by the Holy Spirit?

Talking about civility, you keep telling us that your denomination is "The Church", and that only your denomination has the right interpretation or the right to interpret (isn't that in and of itself hijacking scripture?). Rather than coming out with this arrogance, why not simply get into God's word and let's discuss.

Conversely, Catholic doctrine holds “that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.” (Trent, Fourth Session, April 8, 1546)

There goes that arrogance again. You are claiming (contrary to 2 Pet 1:20) that a group of men in your denomination are the only ones who can interpret. And further suggesting that we dare not disagree with your denomination ("Holy Mother Church"). Do you think that it would be conducive to discussion if I simply told you that you were wrong because the men in my church disagree with you and they are never wrong therefore you must be? Have you ever thought how you, and others who take the same approach come across, especially when you mis-represent what others who disagree with you have said?

2 Peter 1:19-20
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,
NKJV

[sndbay]

1 Corinthians 10:1-11 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as [were] some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

The Word of God comes as encouragement or as our admonition.

Romans 10:3-4 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

This is not for us to worry about, because God will draw near to those that draw near to Him.

Hebrews 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

Matthew 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

'John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


Point of Fact: Scripture brings God's Word

[Wondergirl]

The Catholic Church interprets this verse this way:

Matt 16:15-19
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock (that is, petros, Peter) I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. NKJV

Whereas Protestants and Tom interpret it this way:

Matt 16:15-19
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock (that is, on My Father who is in heaven) I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. NKJV

Because, otherwise, Jesus would have said, "... And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on you I will build My church... "

The problem in interpretation is, what is the antecedent of "this rock"?

[Tj3]

The Catholic Church interprets this verse this way:

Matt 16:15-19
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock (that is, petros, Peter) I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. NKJV

whereas Protestants and Tom interpret it this way:

Matt 16:15-19
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock (that is, on My Father who is in heaven) I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. NKJV

because, otherwise, Jesus would have said, "...And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on you I will build My church...."

The problem in interpretation is, what is the antecedent of "this rock"?

Actually,I would suggest that logically the rock was Christ, not the Father. My reasons are given below. I have not heard anyone previously suggest that the reference to the Rock referred to God the Father, though I do agree that there is no question that it refers to God.

What do we see in the passage?

- Jesus was speaking to his disciples as a group
- The topic was "who is Jesus"
- Peter answered that he is the Messiah, son of the living God.
- Jesus does not immediately refer to Peter, but rather the fact that the revelation of the truth came from God the Father (further confirming that it is the statement of who He is that He is referring to)

The word Peter here is Petros, which means stone or a piece of a rock, and then Jesus refers to the "Rock" which is the revelation of who he is, and states that His church shall be built upon this revelation that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. The word "rock" here is Petra, which means rock, or a mass of rock. We do not build a building upon a piece of a rock or a stone, but rather upon a rock that is massive enough to provide a solid foundation. Jesus' choice of words made it clear which should be the foundation of His church. It is interesting to note the consistency of scripture in the use of these terms, Rock and stone. Throughout scripture, the Rock almost always refers to God (Father or Son):

Deut 32:4
4 He is the Rock, His work is perfect; For all His ways are justice, A God of truth and without injustice; Righteous and upright is He.
NKJV

2 Sam 22:47
47 "The LORD lives! Blessed be my Rock! Let God be exalted, The Rock of my salvation!
NKJV

Ps 18:46
46 The LORD lives! Blessed be my Rock! Let the God of my salvation be exalted.
NKJV

Ps 95:1
Let us shout joyfully to the Rock of our salvation.
NKJV

Isa 17:10
10 Because you have forgotten the God of your salvation, And have not been mindful of the Rock of your stronghold,
NKJV

1 Cor 10:4-5
For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
NKJV

We could also have quoted Deut 32:15, Deut 32:18, Deut 32:30-31, 2 Sam 23:3, Ps 28:1, Ps 42:9, Ps 144:1, Iss 44:8 and Hab 1:12. As for the stone, there is much less, but here is what we do find:

John 1:42
42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone).
NKJV

1 Peter 2:4-6
4 Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
NKJV

So, we are stones, but there are references to Jesus as a stone as well, for example Romans 9:33, where He is referred to both as a Rock and a Stone. That is because he is the cornerstone:

Eph 2:19-22
19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
NKJV

The cornerstone is in fact, a rock. So Jesus can be called a stone (cornerstone), but is more frequently called the Rock and even the reference to Him being a stone refers to a Rock (cornerstone). On the other hand, there is no reference in scripture anywhere of Peter being called a Rock. He is a stone, as we all are stones per 1 Peter 2:4-6. This may also be a reference to the fact that Jesus is both God (Rock) and man (stone), and is the sole person to hold such a distinction.

Jesus, as the Rock, is also the cornerstone, which is the most notable piece of the foundation, but the confession of Peter that Jesus is Christ is the foundation upon which the church will be built. We see this endorsed in scripture as well, later by Paul:

1 Cor 3:11
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
NKJV

So the foundation is Jesus, not Peter. A church built upon Jesus, and the revelation of the fact that he is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God is the church that will stand, not a church built upon a man.

[Wondergirl]

I agree, Tom. I should have said "...And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock (Jesus then points to Himself) I will build My church..."

[cozyk]

After reading ALL this stuff I have one question...

What does it matter??

[Tj3]

After reading ALL this stuff I have one question....

What does it matter????

What part of the discussion specifically are you asking about?

[ScottRC]

Beautiful!

[ScottRC]

Can you do a word search? The same word used for Hell is also translated as Hades, Gehenna, and Sheol and since the word purgatory is not in the Holy Word of God, it is hard to do a word search on it. But I have found that it also is translated as hell.

You can search whatever you'd like, but if you are really trying to understand the Catholic teaching on purgatory you should know that it is NOT HELL.

Heaven - Purgatory - Hell ------> NO ONE in Purgatory goes to hell.

In three controversial Wednesday Audiences, Pope John Paul II pointed out that the essential characteristic of heaven, hell or purgatory is that they are states of being of a spirit (angel/demon) or human soul, rather than places, as commonly perceived and represented in human language. This language of place is, according to the Pope, inadequate to describe the realities involved, since it is tied to the temporal order in which this world and we exist. In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him.

"Incorporeal things are not in place after a manner known and familiar to us, in which way we say that bodies are properly in place; but they are in place after a manner befitting spiritual substances, a manner that cannot be fully manifest to us." [St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Supplement, Q69, a1, reply 1]
Heaven, Hell and Purgatory

Jesus is all we need.

Amen.

[Wondergirl]

Flash! Rhetorical question: So if "Jesus is all we need," why would purgatory be necessary?

[ScottRC]

Flash! Rhetorical question: So if "Jesus is all we need," why would purgatory be necessary?

Well... oh... sorry-----> rhetorical question... my bad.

I'll wait for a non-rhetorical question.

[Wondergirl]

Well... oh... sorry-----> rhetorical question.... my bad.

I'll wait for a non-rhetorical question.

Okay. Switching it to a non-rhetorical one -- go for it! (which we have been doing in a couple of the recent threads... )

[ScottRC]

So if "Jesus is all we need," why would purgatory be necessary?

In purgatory, Christ "removes ... the remnants of imperfection".

So your assertion that we need something other than Christ is false... and it seems all you really object to is the "timing" of Christ's work.

[Wondergirl]

In purgatory, Christ "removes ... the remnants of imperfection".

So your assertion that we need something other than Christ is false.... and it seems all you really object to is the "timing" of Christ's work.

I don't assert that we need something other than Christ. "Timing"? Do you have me mixed up with someone else? I'm Lutheran, born on Martin Luther's birthday.

[JoeT777]

I agree, Tom. I should have said "...And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock (Jesus then points to Himself) I will build My church..."

Tj3, Wondergirl, et al.

Matt 16: 13-20 The Primacy of Peter (The first, Simon who is called Peter Matt 10:2)

18. Et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram ædificabo Ecclesiam meam, et portæ inferi non prævalebunt adversus eam. (That thou art Peter)

The Catholic Church has always understood the Scripture to give Primacy to Peter. This was illustrated in a letter written by Pope Clement I (third in succession to Peter and had personally known Peter) to the Corinthians (circa) 95 AD claiming authority over Corinth. St. Irenaeus tells the second hand account from St. Polycarp where John was heard to say “the faithful wo are everywhere must agree with this Church (Rome) because of its more important principality.” During the Councils and Synods surrounding the early heresies the Popes decision settled the matter. This is illustrated in 431 AD. Where the Bishops responded to Pope Celestine’s decision, “He [Peter] lives even to this time, and always in his successor’s gives judgment.”

Only after 1520 some have asked why this reference is only found in one Gospel and not the others, Warren Carroll suggest the rather simple answer: “Why are Christ’s words to Peter found only in Matthew, and not in the other gospels? Because Mathew was there, with Peter and the Twelve, on the road to Caesarea Philippi in the summer of 29 A.D.: he heard the dialogue himself, in his own Aramaic language. Mark the Evangelist was not there; his information came from Peter, and we have very early testimony that out of humility Peter did not include Christ’s praise of him in his catechesis. John had the other gospels before him as he wrote, and rarely repeated what they had already reported.. . “ That the words don’t appear in Mark’s Gospel was influenced by Peter’s humility. It would be easy to suggest this as speculation however Victor of Antioch, the first commentator of Mark, mentions it as does Eusebius of Caesarea. Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom Vol 1, 1985, pg 338. (see also footnote 139)

In the Douay Rheims the verse reads as follows:

13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Cæsarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? 14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? 16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.

In the way of setting the scene; Caesarea Phillippi is in the valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon as mentioned in Josh 11:17 or Baal Hemon as mentioned in Judg 3:3. Of particular interest is a land feature of a massive rock face. One of the tributaries for the Jordan River flows through the area. The area was liberated by the Maccabean revolt in 167 B.C. In 4 B.C. one of Herod the Great s three sons, Philip, built the Roman Grecian of Caesarea Philippi to honor the Roman emperor.

You can imagine Jesus with this huge rock wall as a backdrop, asking twice (not once but twice), “Whom to they say that I am?” No other disciples could give the answer but Simon. Simon confessed Jesus as being both the Messiah and the “Son of the Living God.” God had revealed to Simon what no other man on earth knew; Christ was the Second Person of the One Devine God.

17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 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.

I can’t claim any significance to the number of times “blessed art thou” is used in the New Testament. However, it is used only three times, twice in Luke 1: 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women... 45 And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be; and once in Matthew 16:17. It’s only used once by Jesus. (this holds true in the NKJV also) In my estimation, like Mary, God seats Peter in a special Chair for our salvation; the first of 266 whose “successor’s gives judgment,” St. Peter, St. Linus, St. Anacletus, St. Clement I, St. Alexander I, St. Sixtus I, St. Telesphorus, St. Hyginus… Benedict XVI

In plain language of today, the simple meaning of the verse 18 becomes: because this was revealed to you by God, I will call you Rock and on this Rock I will build my church; hell won’t prevail against it.

19 And 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 on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The “keys” are the keys to the kingdom of heaven, similar to the “keys” mentioned in Isaiah 22. With the transfer of the keys, one to another, power and authority is also transferred; Christ gives Peter the supreme authority over the Church and to bind and loose, both in heaven and on earth.

“In regard to the Petros Kepha argument made by some, “the play of words involved in naming Simon “Rock” is as clear in Aramaic as in English, if we use the literal translation “Rock” for the Aramaic Kepha rather than “Peter” which is derived from the Greek Petros. In Greek the noun for rock is feminine. Therefore it is unsuitable for a man’s name, and Peter is named Petros while the precise word for rock is petra, making the meaning a little less clear. But Christ’s words to Peter were spoken in Aramaic and first recorded in Armaic in Matthew’s Gospel; furthermore, we know that Peter was later often called Kepha or Cephas as well as Petros.” “Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom Vol 1, 1985, pg 349 footnote 135.

Below is a list of various references to the Primacy of Peter. (The Catholic apologist's scriptural cheat sheet last revised March 2, 1998 by Christopher Wong ([email protected]))

Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13; Lk 9:32... Peter always mentioned first, as foremost apostle.
Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69... Peter speaks for the apostles.
Acts 2:14-40... Pentecost: Peter who first preached.
Acts 3:6-7... Peter worked first healing.
Acts 10:46-48... Gentiles to be baptized revealed to Peter.
Jn 1:42... Simon is Cephas (Aramaic: Kepha for rock).
Mt 16:18-19... "on this Rock ... keys ... bind ... loose"
Is 22:22; Rev 1:18... keys as symbol of authority.
Jn 21:17... "feed my sheep"
Lk 22:31-32... "Simon ... strengthen your brethren".
Lk 10:1-2, 16; Jn 13:20; 2 Cor 5:20; Gal 4:14; Acts 5:1-5... "vicars" (substitutes) of Christ.

JoeT

Why was that a nice save? Are we playing a game?

[Wondergirl]

Why was that a nice save? Are we playing a game?

You didn't read what I wrote and then Tom's adjustment? He was more specific than I was, and clarified what I had said. And no, we aren't playing a game.

[Wondergirl]

making the meaning a little less clear

Glad you mentioned that...

[ScottRC]

I don't assert that we need something other than Christ. "Timing"? Do you have me mixed up with someone else? I'm Lutheran, born on Martin Luther's birthday.

Wow.:eek:

You stated: So if "Jesus is all we need," why would purgatory be necessary?

Which makes no sense... since purgatory IS through Christ.

It's like asking: "if "Jesus is all we need." why would Jesus be necessary?"

Any clearer yet?

[sndbay]

In purgatory, Christ "removes ... the remnants of imperfection".

So your assertion that we need something other than Christ is false.... and it seems all you really object to is the "timing" of Christ's work.

Scott, Timing? So what happened at the time Christ was nailed to the cross? I believe Christ picked the timing. So once again I rebuke the idea that there is another time for it to take place again.. It would be nailing Christ to the Cross again. REBUKE!

[sndbay]

After reading ALL this stuff I have one question....

What does it matter????

The Truth is and will always be, we as mortal men can not reveal unto each other. For it is written only the Father which is in heaven reveals.

Matthew 16:17 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.

The revelation of what the Father has given us all, is written in scripture. Not part of what is written but all that is written. Why it was written is spoken of in 1 Corinthians 10:1-11 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as [were] some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

This is written...They, the disciples included, followed the spiritual ROCK and the ROCK was Christ.

This is written...Christ is with us every minutes of everyday. We have "HIM" if you choose to have "HIM" Why would you want a mortal person to follow? Do you need someone or some object as the example of those people did when Moses went up on the mount unto God?

This is written that those having victory with heaven open unto them. They were singing the song of Moses.... Revelation 15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous [are] thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true [are] thy ways, thou King of saints.

Sing the Song of Moses