psychoslice
Veteran Member
your so called truth is just that your so called truth, it means nothing in reality, your so call intercultural
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"On this Rock I will build my church"
- Thread starter Kemosloby
- Start date
psychoslice
Veteran Member
SpiritQuest
The Immortal Man
Jesus explained that God's Spirit was in Simon and revealed it to him. Therefore the true Rock is the omnipresent Spirit of God that is in all of creation and also within us. The Sonship in its oneness transcends the sum of its parts. We are all one. The true gospel is the gospel of life.
Well, Jesus said if the spirit of God is in you you'd confess that Jesus is the Son of God.
1 John 4:2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
Dear ben,
Daniel 7:24-28 is about "another" king "will arise after them, which is in reference to the "fourth beast" and his 10 horns, which are the 10 horns of Caesar, being the 10 Caesar Augustus, between the destroyer of Jerusalem, Pompey, and the destroyer of Jerusalem, Titus. The "another" king would be Constantine, who instituted the Roman church at his convened Council of Nicaea, in the year 325 AD.
Daniel 9:26-27, is in reference to the "complete destruction" of "the one who makes desolate", and "the prince to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary", not "Jews" "to take possession of the kingdoms of the whole land. The combining the stick of Ephraim/Israel, and the stick of Judah, has not happened. Nor does king David currently rule over both "sticks" in the "land that I gave to Jacob" (Ez 37:16-28).
Hosea 5:12 is about "I am like a moth to Ephraim, and like rottenness to the house of Judah". That will happen until "He will revive us after two days" (Hosea :2). With the Lord, a day is like a thousand years. (Psalms 90:4) The "Lord" will "go away and return to My place" until they acknowledge their guilt" (Hosea 5:15).
Your referral to Ex 37:12, is a little premature for both the stick of Judah and the stick of Ephraim being reunited on the Land of Israel, with king David their king.(Ez 37:24) Only Judah and Jerusalem have been restored at this time (Joel 3:1). Israel remains "scattered among the nations" at this time. (Joel 3:2). You are going to have to wait until "Jerusalem" is "captured" (Zech 14:1), and then the Lord will "go forth and fight" (Zech 14:2), before the "hunters" are sent off to bring back the sons of Israel (Jer 16:15-18). First Israel will have to be repaid for their "iniquity' (Jer 16:18). If you will notice, the nations have yet to "celebrate the feast of booths" (Zech 14:16), nor have they brought their gold to Jerusalem (Zech 14:14).
New American Standard Bible Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night.
Ben Avraham
Well-Known Member
ben wrote: Daniel 7:24-28 is a prophecy about the end of the Babylonian exile and return of the Jews back to the Land of Israel.
Daniel 7:24-28 is about the king following the "fourth beast" (Daniel 7:23) which crushed the other beast, including Babylon, Persia, and Greece. That was Rome, who crushed Antiochus in 63 BC and destroyed the temple at that time, and the temple was destroyed again by Titus in 70 AD. All three sacrificed swine to their army banners, the "abomination of desolation", or that which makes desolate, on the site of the holy of holies. Daniel 7:27 goes on to say that the kingdoms under heaven will be given to the people of the saints. That hasn't happened, as of this writing.
Per Hosea 5: The Lord did go away with the Jews to Babylon as in the Schechinah and returned only after the 70 years when they acknowledged their guilt.
Hosea 5 & 6 is about both Judah and Ephraim, not just Judah. Ephraim remained "scattered among the nations" (Joel 3:2) "They will no longer be divided into two kingdoms" (Ez 37:22), after the joining of the two sticks, which has not happened. Those of the "nations that went against Jerusalem" do not "celebrate the Feast of Booths" (Zech 14:16). That is in the future . "Jerusalem" has not been "captured" per Zech 14:2-3, it has just been restored in 1967 (Joel 3:1)
David, personally, will never return to take part in any kind of government. The reference to David as a king to the sticks of Judah and Israel is only a reference to the government of Judah promised by God do David when still alive. (I Kings 11:36) I referred nothing to Ex 37:12 but Ezekiel 37:12. David over that throne is represented by someone from the Judah.
I am thinking that you do not believe your own prophets. Ezekiel 37:11-14, "These bones are the whole house of Israel", which is to say not just Judah, but Ephraim as well, and "I will put My Spirit within you, and you will come to life, and I will place you on your own land, then you will know that I the Lord, have spoken and done it". Ezekiel 37:25-26, they will live on it forever; and David My servant shall be their prince forever".. "and I will make a covenant of peace with them", which apparently hasn't happened as of this day, and apparently won't happen until Jerusalem is "captured" (Zech 14:2-3).
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
It appears that you misunderstood what I wrote based on your response above-- but whatever-- notta big deal.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Peter's name ("Kephas" in Aramaic) is symbolic of what Jesus expected of him, thus why he gave him that name.
According to our view it was only a confirmation that Peter had the right idea about Who Jesus really was not a Covenant between Christians and Christ clear successorship.
"At most, His Holiness Jesus Christ gave only an intimation, a symbol, and that was but an indication of the solidity of Peter's faith. When he mentioned his faith, His Holiness said "Thou art Peter"—which means rock—"and upon this rock I will build My church." This was a sanction of Peter's faith; it was not indicative of his (Peter) being the expounder of the Book, but was a confirmation of Peter's faith. -Abdul-Bahá'í
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But the canon of "the Book" hadn't been decided at that time, and the "N.T." hadn't even been written.
This is how we understand it after the fact and after the Book has been written that Jesus only referred to Peter's Faith nothing else.
I agree that in part it was a confirmation of Peters Faith, confessing Jesus is the Son of God, the foundation of Christianity. You would build a church on a foundation, So the Rock which Jesus would build his church on is himself, those who confess Jesus is the Son of God are the building on the foundation. As we can see here in Corinthians.
1 Cor. 3:11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Exactly! The church needed to be built upon belief that Jesus was the Son of God and all Jesus teachings such as love and forgiveness.
Anything else would be a foundation of sand not rock.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Again, Peter's name, which was assigned to him by Jesus, means "rock" ("Kephas" in Aramaic). Why would Jesus have given him that name if it meant nothing?
Peter was recognized as the earthly spiritual leader of the Way, James the political leader, and Judas the treasurer, and early 2nd century writings confirm that this is how the early church saw it.
For ambiguity. Why did Jesus lay a stumbling block for people to stumble on? He leaves you with the option of getting it wrong.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The "rock" that some stumble on ... Remember what means in context?
Again, it's pretty much common sense that Jesus was using the word "rock" in reference to Peter otherwise he assigning that name would make literally no sense whatsoever.
When the Aramaic name "Kephas" was translated into Koine Greek, there was a problem because of the use of gender. "Petra" couldn't be used as him name because it's feminine-- therefore "Petros".
The Living Stone 1 Peter 2:8
…To you who believe, then, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and, “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the message — and to this they were appointed. But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, to proclaim the virtues of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.…
So by accepting Peter as the Rock you follow in their footsteps disobeying the message, and rejecting the true meaning. Jesus is the cornerstone and proclaiming Jesus as the Son of God is the foundation.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Your getting ''mean nothing'' ,or rather not mean nothing, mixed up with ''choosing you to start the catholic church''''
The name
Peter , doesn't ''mean nothing'', but Jesus is not building the church , on Peter.
ie /built on the Gospel etc
tl;dr I mean, really?, 10 pages?
Coming from an Eastern point of view, the two ways are the Truth and what one hears (and thinks he understands what was said). In today's world there is the written word, where one does not hear the inflection of what was said, and not being able to understand what was said because of the lack of cultural context. Without knowing what the inflection was how could anyone understand what was truly meant?
To me, "this rock" meant Jesus himself, as if he were pointing to Peter and saying "Your name means rock," and then pointing to himself, saying "Upon this rock I will build my Church". In the Eastern point of view when Jesus pointed to himself he was pointing to the inside of himself, his Being, his Spirit, his Self, his Silence, his Enlightenment, etc.
In that context the next line makes more sense to me, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Matt 16:19. The keys were meditation techniques to get to 'No-Mind,' 'No-Thought,' just pure Awareness, where one becomes conscious of one's consciousness-thinking while also not being attached to what that consciousness is thinking, finding on'e Self.
What then one binds is one's Self, the discovery of one's Self, and what is loosened is the letting go of one's Ego, the ego that identifies with the world, worldly existence, one's identity.
Elsewhere Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven is inside oneself, to close the doors (to the world) and to look inside. Paraphrased. If the Kingdom of Heaven is inside then the keys to get inside oneself must be meditation, and what is bound is one's Enlightenment when one attains it and what is loosened is one's "sins," one's karma; therefore one enters Heaven and his sins do not; one finds that one's Self is pure and cannot be tainted by one's sins because those sins are attached to the body, to the consciousness that identifies with that body.
Just one point of view. When one is in love one will not (as opposed to "won't") be thinking such thoughts, no? And when one is close to death it will all be seen as utter nonsense. Love is beyond thought, the latter is realization.
Last edited: