... in Defense of the Eucharist (to Another Commenter under Krauss)

David Randall

25 seconds in, and Krauss is wrong already. I am a Christian, I believe in the doctrines of my faith, and I know MANY Christians who do. But Krauss is a atheist and knows nothing of Christianity so I am not yet surprised by Krauss. Also, like most atheists, Krauss does not know or understand the difference between faith and religion. A person can religiously pick their nose or proclaim there is no God. It takes faith in atheism, and atheists and atheist dogma to practice that religious practice.

Faith is preference. You decide to adopt of belief despite not having conclusive evidence. No one can prove does not exists, so to believe there is no God is a kind of faith, just not a wise one from my point of view.

For Krauss to make the assertion that the 21st century has no place for religion, I have bad news for him, and its of a Biblical nature. The Novus Ordo Seclorum gang is about to run smack into their creator.

I am curious how Krauss will address his creator God when he dies. Probably much in the same way Sagan, Marx, Asimov and Hawkins did, and I'm sure it was not and is not a pleasant experience for them.

30 seconds in. Okay, he is right about something regarding Christians, but its accidental so it only half counts. Yes, Christians want to believe because what ever faith a person has, it is first preference. If you don't want to believe in God, that is your preference (faith). You have faith in your beliefs and those who also believe as you do and even those who author the ideas that you subscribe to. So an atheists has faith, that there is no God. They just can't prove it. Faith.

44 seconds in . . . Christ said "eat this in REMEMBRANCE of me." No one should drive drunk and atheists should NOT quote the Bible or comment on it. They CAN'T get it right because God will not let them.

50 Seconds in . . . Jewish Atheists: Uhm read Romans chapter 11. God blinded Jews just like he blinded atheists. But the Jews gets a second chance, because they did not ask to be blinded. Krauss did.

59 Seconds in . . . Krauss just said that Jews are atheists, but there are some parts of their religion that they like. This is true. It is also evidence that Jews have been blinded, and that religion and faith are NOT the same thing. So that is one full point for Krauss. But since it actually undermines his lack of faith, or at least the reasons for it, I take the point back.

1:07 in . . . what makes the Iron age Jews peasants? They were as noble as anyone else was. They certainly had Kings. . . I would cite the book of Kings as proof of that. Additionally, what they thought about the stars at the time and through the ages is difficult to address, but if Krauss is attempting to make a point about the Sun, all ancient societies had knowledge of the stars, sun and moon far in advance of what the average college graduate does today. More to the point nothing about the observations made by ancient peoples decry flat earth or globe earth as the observations they made work on either.

1:12 Krauss waxes stupid here. The wisdom in the 613 laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy were the basis and the only source of early hygiene, financial, agricultural and food preparation that showed any kind of advance knowledge of disease or mystery behind the 7 year financial cycles. Not to mention medicine. Jews were hired by most of the ancient and medieval world as bankers, doctors, financial advisers, historians, scientists and philosophers BECAUSE of the knowledge that they obtained from the Bible. It was almost like someone knew all that stuff BEFORE it could have been known, and that same someone shared it ONLY with the Jews. Hmm . . . weird.

Additionally the Bible has single-handedly been the first document to introduce the world to The Hittites, The city of Jericho, the chariot wheels at the bottom of the red sea, the concept of a binary star, and about 1800 other locations, persons, and events that were all at one time claimed NOT to be real by historical atheists like Krauss, and in EVERY SINGLE CASE, the Krausses of the world were wrong.

Not so weird.

1:31 Krauss waxes stupid again. First of all,does Krauss take some kind of survey of scientists to know what they think about on a daily basis. Its not like most scientists I know even respect Krauss, who is so clearly an atheists first and everything else second. It would be like expecting an honest opinion about a hoover vacuum for a door to door Kirby vacuum salesman.

Additionally to make the both false and again STUPID statement that science in ANY WAY disproves God shows that Krauss knows NOTHING of the Higgs-Boson particle, dark matter and dark energy, visible vs non-visible light spectrum, the multiverse theory, the quantum field theory and just about every other theory. All of which either point directly toward, allude to or allow for the existence of God. Not to mention the geologic column, the mapping of human DNA and the sum total of human history. All of which show God more as a likelihood than anything else.

Krauss's hatred for God is so obvious at this point that he probably gets boils from fake holy water.

1:44 Now with the natural world. I suppose then Krauss has a good reason why there is such a disparity between the complexity of non-living things as opposed to living things. I suppose the Fibonacci sequence, the presences of more than 90% marine life in every geological layer, and the fact that ONLY homosapiens are found in human mitochondrial DNA mean nothing to him. Entire forests existing through many layers of the geological column I suppose can be ignored by Krauss without the need for an explanation, because who needs an explanation when you can have indoctrination instead?

2:16 Krauss here is showing his true self. He acknowledges that the morality of (he says religion) I say faith is required, yet he just wants you to NOT believe in God. Why?

Dude (Dudette,, other) . . . he's a committed atheists. That is what he is selling. If you are buying, you are buying from a second rate used car salesman. He isn't FACTUALLY correct . . why would you trust him with what is potentially your most prized possession? Your immortal soul.

If you are being totally objective, and you need to be because ONLY YOU can make this decision., Krauss is offering you nothing for everything (in its potential)

Its like trading your house AND FAMILY for some stupid beans. And BTW, he tells you in advance that they are NOT magical beans.

Do not listen to this man unless its as a reverse barometer. This man is a moron.

2:24 Krauss claims that the purpose of science it to (I'm quoting him) ""To force people's BELIEFS to CONFORM (my emphasis) to evidence of reality, and not the other way around and not provide the answers before we (ask yourself who is we? Are you we? Is Krauss we?) even ask them."

Not not withstanding that AGAIN Krauss is wrong, it is NOT The role or purpose of science to "FORCE people's beliefs"in any way. Krauss's view of science is a lot like Hitler's.

And what reality? Science is constantly changing and reforming and redrawing lines based one what we learn. Who the hell is Krauss to FORCE YOUR REALITY when he (his we) determine what is reality. As if he was even smart enough to make that decision for himself, let alone you or I or anyone.

The man is a science fascist in the same class as Neil Degrasse Tyson, or Bill Nye, or Richard (angry drunk) Dawkins. These semi-educated and ideologically frigid thought Nazi's who have decided both for you and for all what is despite the fact that "what is" is still not just unknown, but unknowable.

Don't buy into this turd polishing troglodyte's asinine rhetoric. Us your brain, its likely much more suited for thinking than his anyway.

In Krauss's "Global World" you will have thought policing dullards like him holding posts they are not intellectually equipped to execute and they will build something that makes Nazi Germany look like a tolerant melting pot.

This man is NOT your friend. He is an enemy to your freedom of thought and is far worse than any zealot, because like the Nazi's he doesn't value life, only his twisted perception of reality.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

// 44 seconds in . . . Christ said "eat this in REMEMBRANCE of me." No one should drive drunk and atheists should NOT quote the Bible or comment on it. They CAN'T get it right because God will not let them. //

IN fact, Krauss was commenting on Roman Catholics and our belief in transsubstantiation.

If you, as a Protestant, don't believe it, God allowed even an atheist to get it right before you, but as I recall, he was not commenting in the words in the Bible, but on the Catholic dogma as Catholic.

Apart from that, I agree a lot, see what I had to say about his first 6 minutes here:

http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/09/against-krauss-ten-answers-to-his-first.html

David Randall

God blinded those who persist in ungodliness, he did it to the Jews and he did it to all who prefer not to see him. It has nothing to do with Catholic vs Protestant, and I am neither. I am a follower of the way the truth and light.

I do not kiss rings, say vain and repetitious prayers, call the dead saints, claim that a man has any power to block my communication with God, or act on behalf of Christ. I do not claim nor is it possible to approach Mary the mother of Christ or dead people called saints for any kind of intercession or answer any prayer or even hear my prayers, as that is Idolatry, and blasphemy and worshiping false gods.

Additionally, I do not keep or use or pray with beads, crosses or other graven images as they are nothing but objects made by man and objects of scorn to God.

Transsubstantiation is another invented neo-pagan adaptation that is NOT Biblical yet for the Catholics is doctrine. Show me where Christ said "eat my corpse".

He said that when you eat, remember me, because no man shall live by bread alone. He didn't mean that one should consume the flesh of Christ. This is obvious to those who depart from foolish man made doctrines and follow only the teachings of Christ.

The Whore that rides upon the beast is the Church of Laodicea and she is the Church of later days.

Atheists who love not the truth, cannot understand the Bible nor its wisdom, this is a pervasive message throughout the Bible. Show me where it says in the Bible that a nonbeliever will know God's laws, doctrine and mysteries before one one of his elect.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, but the things you say [in his second comment, not all in the first one against Krauss] are clearly Protestant heresies, condemned as such by the Council of Trent.

Now, one specific point:

"Transsubstantiation is another invented neo-pagan adaptation that is NOT Biblical yet for the Catholics is doctrine. Show me where Christ said 'eat my corpse'."

Show me where the Church is claiming this is what transsubstantiation means.

There was no Communion held during the three days when His body was indeed a corpse.

At the Last Supper, His body was a live body, and after Resurrection, His body is a live body.

On Good Friday, while you can go to Communion after confessing, you cannot do so on a Host consecrated same day.

On Holy Saturday, there is no Mass celebrated to the evening, and that Mass belongs to the Sunday, according to the Hebrew tradition of starting days at evening.

We clearly do not believe in "eating the corpse of Christ" when we ritually avoid to say Mass when "my body" would be - as per memory - "my dead body".

David Randall

Of course you don't believe in eating a corpse,and I said as much to provoke a response. I wanted to be sure i was talking to a believer.

A few points though:

Transsubtantiation: Again, there is no Biblical doctrine that makes a claim that there is a literal and actual alteration from bread to flesh and from wine to blood.

In fact the eating and drinking of either is expressly forbidden. I know you know that. But then why does The Catholic Church (and Orthodox and Protestant occasionally, its two derivatives) take on this practice as if Christ was saying literally eat my body and drink my blood. That is NOT what he was saying and it is NOT the point of the message. The point is to be mindful of him and to know that his blood was spilled and his body destroyed for the sins of man. The Church doctrine does not correctly express this message during the Eucharist.

On Sunday, Sunday is the first day of the week and NOT the Sabbath. The Sabbath is the last day of the week and the word Sabbath is the root of Saturday (Sabbath Day). Another doctrine that is pagan in origin as Sunday was the say that the pagan who worshiped the sun would pray facing the rising Sun and pray also during the setting sun in some cases.

The commandment was to keep the Sabbath Holy and that is was a day of rest. Yet in the paganized world, Sunday has been given this purpose by in large in Christian countries. Oddly enough our Islamic and Jewish brothers in blood and not in Christ keep this commandment.

The Counsel of Trent was held as a response to the birth of Protestantism. I am not a huge fan of it either in terms of Church Doctrine. However it correctly pointed out the Biblical inconsistencies within the Catholic and by then Orthodox Churches. All that I named previously and many more.

How then does a counsel of pride hurt men 1500 plus years after the death of Christ come to the point where by doctrine and policy they can overturn the teachings of Christ?

I stated all of my criticisms of Catholic Doctrine truly. Every single practice I mentioned is expressly forbidden, not just by the prophets, but by the words of Christ himself. How then does a body of men come to the point that they can supersede or reverse doctrine expressly established by the Son of God?

I care nothing for the findings of unwed priests servile to doctrine of men and not God. A priest is supposed to take on a wife and she is to be of high stock in terms of faith and character. The laws are not thrown out. Christs is the fulfillment of the law.

As a benefit of Grace we do not need to know or follow the law to enter into the kingdom of heaven, but a priest must know the law and the doctrines of Christ, or he is not a priest of Christ but a man who makes God a liar.

No Counsel of fools can make the words of Christ a lie without both peril to themselves, and without doing harm to their brother.

This is such an important point God waited until the very end of the Bible to make the point, clearly it is important to him:

Revelations 22:18-21
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.

19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

20 He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.”

Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God’s people. Amen.

That is VERY clear and not in any way subject to interpretation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Again, there is no Biblical doctrine that makes a claim that there is a literal and actual alteration from bread to flesh and from wine to blood."

If by "Biblical doctrine" you mean a direct statement, no, there is not.

Neither is there for your point of view.

If by Biblical doctrine you mean the kinds of statements around the question which allow it to be solved, the Biblical doctrine of transsubstantiation depends on the Biblical statement of the Real Presence: Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24.

"In fact the eating and drinking of either is expressly forbidden."

The eating of a human corpse or the drinking of blood out of a man is definitely forbidden. Both actions hurt the man's either survival in drinking of blood or integrity before resurrection in the case of eating a corpse.

Those bans do not concern the eating of Christ's risen body, since it is not dismembered by the eating, or the drinking of His blood, since it is in the veins.

"But then why does The Catholic Church (and Orthodox and Protestant occasionally, its two derivatives) take on this practice as if Christ was saying literally eat my body and drink my blood."

Read the statement in Corinthians.

this is my body, which shall be delivered for you

Christ did not deliver a piece of bread next day on Calvary.

"That is NOT what he was saying and it is NOT the point of the message. The point is to be mindful of him and to know that his blood was spilled and his body destroyed for the sins of man. The Church doctrine does not correctly express this message during the Eucharist."

Your Protestant theory of the matter - it is Protestant in so far as Zwinglian or Calvinist and it was condemned as such by the Council of Trent - is not accurately rephrasing what Christ said.

You may be thinking of the words (continuing at Corinthians):

this do for the commemoration of me.

He did not say "this is not me, it is just a commemoration of me", since He had just said the opposite. He said "do this" - namely what He had just done. Thereby authorising THEM to repeat the transsubstantiation He had just worked.

"On Sunday, Sunday is the first day of the week and NOT the Sabbath. The Sabbath is the last day of the week and the word Sabbath is the root of Saturday (Sabbath Day). Another doctrine that is pagan in origin as Sunday was the say that the pagan who worshiped the sun would pray facing the rising Sun and pray also during the setting sun in some cases."

Would you mind telling me where the Church is which kept all this time the Sabbath?

If you point at the Synagogue, it denies Jesus.

"How then does a counsel of pride hurt men 1500 plus years after the death of Christ come to the point where by doctrine and policy they can overturn the teachings of Christ?"

If Trent was a "counsel of pride" - where was the Church in that day which could have held a true counsel, like the one in Acts 15?

Orthodox Church also condemned Protestantism, and affirmed Real Presence (councils of Iasi and Jerusalem).

Copts and Nestorians also believe Real Presence, and Copts, Nestorians and Armenians believe Holy Mass is a sacrifice and Armenians previously (back when a monk condemned Tondrakians) affirmed Real Presence too.

Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, Armenians and Nestorians are the five confessions which have some claim to Apostolic succession.

"I care nothing for the findings of unwed priests servile to doctrine of men and not God."

Oh, that explains your callousness about Corinthians! You know, St Paul was an unwed priest!

"A priest is supposed to take on a wife"

Is he? Or is he supposed to take only one?

"Christs is the fulfillment of the law."

Did He take a wife?

Or did He live celibate?

the prophecy of this scroll

I e, Apocalypse. The whole New Testament or the whole Bible is possible to write in a codex, but not in a scroll.

"That is VERY clear and not in any way subject to interpretation."

Apart from your interpreting wrongly the verses 18 and 19, at least verse 21 is very clear.

As you cite it.

In fact, it has text variants.

Nestle Aland has μετὰ πάντων - with all. Douay Rheims has with you all and Vulgate agrees cum omnibus vobis - where did you get the reading "with God’s people" from?

If it had been the correct reading, it would have been clear that the Church is a people with a continuous presence on Earth, precisely as Matthew 28:20 is very clear on that one.

Which in turn says : Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, Armenians or Nestorians. NOT Protestants.

David Randall

Hans . . . as far as the communion, we agree in almost every single way. I just think that Church doctrine does a terrible job conveying the meaning of the Eucharist, as it seems like many millions of Catholics can't even describe accurately what is being done. Also the practice of drinking blood is VERY closely tied to paganism and Baal worship of all sorts. So while I think the idea of remembering Christ's sacrifice is absolutely Biblical, I think the doctrine of the Church is so milk-toasty and so weak, that the meaning is lost, as is evidenced by the current position of many former Catholics now turned atheist.

Granted they love not the truth anyway, but the message is not clear and not well defined, and of this I am speaking from personal experience. BTW . . you may be interested in knowing that many Protestant churches now offer this service, and they are even less clear about the meaning.

Now I should say a few things just so you know who I am spiritually.

I am NOT a protestant. I am simply a follower of the way, the truth and the light. I am a Christian, born again through faith and a humble servant of God. I am a sinner in need of Grace and thanks to Christ I have that Grace whereby Christ has indelibly sealed my name in the book of life.

I do criticize many of the doctrines of the Churches who have replaced Christs teachings with the folly of men. Revelations 22:18 is something I think many leaders of the Churches are guilty of.

With that said, these same Churches have lead Billions to Christ, so they have done great works and have much to boast about. It is no small accomplishment by any means. Clearly the seeds spread by the apostles have taken deep root in many places.

Still, as stewards of the Church and devotees to Christ first, we also have a responsibility to be vanguards of the word and Church doctrine so that is does NOT run afoul of Rev 22:18 and all that such would encompass.

The Counsel of Trent was both right and wrong. There were some Protestant claims that were not substantiated by the Bible. This is true.

Christ tells us that the only thing higher than God's name is his word.

How then does the Catholic Church justify calling the dead saints?

Or Allowing a man to lead the Church who claims he can excommunicate a person from God?

Or Allow a leader of the church to receive kisses to a ring? The Biblical symbol for a ring is both wealth and power. Why kiss such an object on the hand of a man? This is Idolatry and worshiping someone other than God.

Or the adoption of pagan symbols like the Fish hats from Baal worship, or a huge stone penis in St. Peters square, or making a Pagan dome on top of the Vatican which is also a pagan symbol of the womb?

Or vain, and repetitious prayers that do not communicate with god, but babble a message not tailored to that person and defy the ability for that soul to unburden themselves to God?

Or the use of the cross and prayer beads which are idols and graven images.

Or Statues of Saints which are the same?

Or seeking intercession from Mary or one of the dead people the Church calls Saints? Didn't Christ say the HE was the ONLY path to the father? This is blasphemy, the worship of false Gods and Idolatry.

Then there is the idea that somehow the Pope speaks for Christ, and is infallible. These are CLEARLY 180 degrees in opposition to what Christ taught.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I just think that Church doctrine does a terrible job conveying the meaning of the Eucharist, as it seems like many millions of Catholics can't even describe accurately what is being done."

I actually described according to the faith shared by precisely millions of Catholics.

"Also the practice of drinking blood is VERY closely tied to paganism and Baal worship of all sorts."

If drinking blood physically separated from the body it belongs to.

"So while I think the idea of remembering Christ's sacrifice is absolutely Biblical,"

That was definitely NOT all I had to say. Read again.

"as is evidenced by the current position of many former Catholics now turned atheist."

There is such a thing as bad catechesis. Many dioceses have apostate "bishops" who catechise badly.

"How then does the Catholic Church justify calling the dead saints?"

How do you justify calling the saints dead?

"And every one that liveth, and believeth in me, shall not die for ever. Believest thou this?"
[John 11:26]

"Amen, amen I say unto you, that he who heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath life everlasting; and cometh not into judgment, but is passed from death to life."
[John 5:24]

"Or Allowing a man to lead the Church who claims he can excommunicate a person from God?"

He more like claims he can excommunicate a man from the Church if he has already excommunicated himself from God.

"Or Allow a leader of the church to receive kisses to a ring?"

Bc this leader of the Church represents Christ.

"This is Idolatry and worshiping someone other than God."

No, since the Church leader is honoured - not adored - for the sake of Christ Whom he represents.

"Or the adoption of pagan symbols like the Fish hats from Baal worship,"

Baal and Dagon worship were happily more or less ended before Christianity arose.

"or a huge stone penis in St. Peters square,"

The point is that there is a Cross over it, and there was an exorcism : Christianity triumphing over Paganism.

"or making a Pagan dome on top of the Vatican which is also a pagan symbol of the womb?"

Bc of the shape? Come on, this is Freudian claptrap.

"Or vain, and repetitious prayers"

Repetitious we agree, what is wrong with that?

A good Bible does NOT have "repeat" or "repetitions" or "repetitious" in Matthew 6:7. Battologein means sth else.

There is actually a Pagan prayer recorded from the 16th year of Tiberius, it is in the end of Velleius Paterculus' Roman History.

"Let our book be concluded with a prayer. O Jupiter Capitolinus, O Jupiter Stator! O Mars Gradivus, author of the Roman name! O Vesta, guardian of the eternal fire! O all ye deities who have exalted the present magnitude of the Roman empire to a position of supremacy over the world, guard, preserve, and protect, I entreat and conjure you, in the name of the Commonwealth, our present state, our present peace, [our present prince[104]!] And when he shall have completed a long course on earth, grant him successors to the remotest ages, and such as shall have abilities to support the empire of the world as powerfully as we have seen him support it! All the just designs of our countrymen * * * *"

I quoted this here:

http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2016/04/two-of-these-quoted-silent-historians.html

"that do not communicate with god,"

What do you know about that?

"but babble a message not tailored to that person"

The fifteen mysteries of the Rosary are for everyone.

"and defy the ability for that soul to unburden themselves to God?"

Absolutely not. Personalising your prayer is not forbidden.

"Or the use of the cross and prayer beads which are idols and graven images."

What exact Church out of Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, Armenians and Nestorians would agree with you on that one?

What exact other Church or sect has any kind of claim to have been around since 33 AD? And if not, what kind of claim is there in it to be fulfilment of God's promise in Matthew 28:20?

"Or Statues of Saints which are the same?"

Dito.

"Or seeking intercession from Mary"

Which was how the first public miracle was demanded, in Cana ...

"or one of the dead people the Church calls Saints?"

I think we already mentioned this ...

"And every one that liveth, and believeth in me, shall not die for ever. Believest thou this?"
[John 11:26]

"Amen, amen I say unto you, that he who heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath life everlasting; and cometh not into judgment, but is passed from death to life."
[John 5:24]

"Didn't Christ say the HE was the ONLY path to the father?"

Wherein He did not deny that some others are paths to Him, see for instance - also relevant for next one:

"He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me."
[Luke 10:16]

"This is blasphemy, the worship of false Gods and Idolatry."

What Church among the five non-Protestant ones would agree?

What other Church has been around since AD 33?

"Then there is the idea that somehow the Pope speaks for Christ, and is infallible."

"He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me."
[Luke 10:16]

Or, why not Ascension Day:

[16] And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [17] And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
Matthew 28

Here the eleven disciples are given power to speak for Christ, and Christ promises to be with them to the end of days.

Are they all still alive, and did you lie about Saints being dead? Or did He mean they have successors to this day?

Well, who was the chief of them?

[16] Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living 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. [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 upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Matthew 16

Note last verse, here we have no ambiguity on whether "this rock" means Jesus or Peter or both. Jesus clearly said "I will give thee the keys"

"These are CLEARLY 180 degrees in opposition to what Christ taught."

Except you did not care to back up what you consider Christ's teachings with actual quotes ....