"On this Rock I will build my church"

[Ben Avraham]

Actually, I don't think that it necessarily even follows that Jesus cannot be divine, /with a human father. However, I do think a/the human incarnation did not need a human father. This also doesn't make Jesus a ''demi-god'', however, because the human aspect is not what we consider the Divinity of Jesus. We do not worship a Rabbi fisherman so forth, technically; rather, the Jesus in Spirit, who pre=exists Adam, and is 'one' with the father, in other words, is God.

And you folks do not like when I say that there is endless similarities between Christianity and Hellenism. Jesus was
one of the sons of Joseph and Mary. Therefore, he was born and, for that matter only, he could not be Divine; unless he was a Greek member of the Olympian Pantheon of Greek Mythology.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

And you folks do not like when I say that there is endless similarities between Christianity and Hellenism. Jesus was
one of the sons of Joseph and Mary. Therefore, he was born and, for that matter only, he could not be Divine; unless he was a Greek member of the Olympian Pantheon of Greek Mythology.

That only makes sense if your god is an Olympian - which he is not.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks..

Ben Avraham;

Jesus would never refer to a different deity because he was a loyal Jew. Jews don't have different deities besides HaShem.

Ah my friend - look at the THINGS HE DID SAY - and see clearly - He has NO AFFILIATION whatsoever to THAT god - the logic and implication of HIS OWN WORDS as recorded FAITHFULLY by those who ACTUALLY walked and talked with Him DAILY make that abundantly clear beyond dispute...LOOK at the OBVIOUS - from Judas first -

“Come, that I may teach you about SECRETS no person has EVER seen. For there exists a great and boundless realm, whose extent NO GENERATION OF ANGELS has seen, in which there is a great invisible Spirit, which NO EYE OF AN ANGEL HAS EVER SEEN, NO THOUGHT OF THE HEART HAS EVER COMPREHENDED,
and it was NEVER called by ANY NAME“

The bold emphasis is mine of course to draw your attention to that which should be plain and obvious to all but the closed indocrinated mind...Christ speaking DIRECTLY to Judas - http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJudas.pdf - makes it UNDENIABLE - this spirit He teaches of here is SECRET He said - NEVER BEFORE ENCOUNTERED..I do so hate to have to repeat my Self, but once again - let it sink in and SEE the IMPLICATIONS - REALISE this simply can NOT BE Yhvh - IMPOSSIBLE !!!

Secrets of a NEW SPIRITUAL REALM that NONE have ever known before - NOT EVEN THE ANGELS know of THIS truth He just told you (all) clearly...Secrets of a new unknown SPIRIT that He says clearly has NEVER BEEN GIVEN ANY NAME !!! Understand then - no way - imopssible - it is NOT Yhvh - it is NOT the Hebrew god - can NOT be that one as He just told you (all) plainly and adamantly that HIS Father is COMPLETELY UNKNOWN - and yet as we know, the Jews ALREADY know Yhvh INTIMATELY.... Look - at this point the Disciples themselves ARE JEWS and already worship THAT god along with everybody else - and yet here He just told them that THEIR god is NOT HIS FATHER and He will tell them now these SECRETS that NONE HAVE EVER KNOWN !!! By Christ own direct words we see that the Father is NOT the Hebrew god Yhvh - and look it is UNDENIABLE - just see the things He says repeatedly, makes it very clear and indeed undeniable - He speaks so plainly in the ORIGINAL scripture that He logically can not mean anything else, can He..??......

Look - this isnt me PeteC-UK making this stuff up Folks - lol - this is the ORIGINAL TRUTH that Christ delivered directly - the truth they MURDERED HIM FOR !!!

Need more proof - easily provided - from Thomas also - again ORIGINAL and DIRECT teaching Christ to Disciple - LOOK and again see clear logic and its implications - undeniable to all but the closed indoctrinated mind :

His disciples said to him, "Who are you to say these things to us?" "You don't understand who I am from what I say to you.
Rather, you have become like the Judeans, for they love the tree but hate its fruit, or they love the fruit but hate the tree."

OOPS !!!! Whats that..?...Seems I was right after all - Look close and see CHRIST IS NOT A JEW !!! Look CLOSELY - He tells the disciples that THEY are like JEWS - but see, He doesnt say IAM A JEW - doesnt claim ANY kinship with the Jews at all - instead He distances Himself from them - SEPERATES HIMSELF FROM THEM and makes it clear He is NOT like the Jews when He says explicitly the disciples do not understand Him because THEY THINK LIKE JEWS - clearly see the IMPLICATION once again - THEY ARE JEWS - HE IS NOT - do try to let it sink in !! Again, He can not mean anything else by that statement can He..??...

Jesus said, "I will give you what no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, what no hand has touched, what has not arisen in the human heart."

Yet again, more talk of SECRETS - He emphasises this time after time - HIS truth - NEW never before known - truth of Yhvh though - old news, fully disclosed and at this time please remember the god is SILENT - do let it sink in deep Folks - they know ALL about their "god" - many many prophets from it - then it declares to them all it will go silent now (after Malachi 400 years BEFORE CHRIST) the god stops speaking to the Jews entirely - Christ comes and delivers a NEW TRUTH that shows that god to be entirely bogus - THIS is why the god went silent anticipating the Christ intervention - this is why Christ says NO ONE KNOWS THE TRUTH because the god lied and deceived them all - and when that deception is revealed the "god" literally gave up all authority here TO the Christ and has NEVER been heard from since.....Christ TRUTH alone explains it all without any discrepancy or confusion - NOT THE FATHER - yhvh IS a lying trickster DEMI god that covets power and authority over us - Christ came to oust that one and replace it with the legitimate Divine truth - hence all this talk of secrets etc etc...and hence the "god" goes SILENT in the face of this direct threat from Christ and it is the PRIESTHOOD that acts to KILL the Christ.......

They showed Him a gold coin and said to him, "The Roman emperor's people demand taxes from us." He said to them, "Give the emperor what belongs to the emperor, give the God what belongs to God, and give me what is mine."

Yet again CLEAR and UNDENIABLE truth that tells us logically and undeniably, HE IS NOT A JEW and has NO AFFILIATION to THAT god...Look - give the Emporer that which its due He says - then give the GOD also that which its due - and then there is CHRIST - SEPERATE from BOTH Emporer AND god...Clearly, He wishes to express His SEPERATION from the JEWISH TRADITION yet again - clearly He says the agenda of BOTH Emporer (mortal world) AND "god" (Jewish tradition) are SEPERATE to HIS agenda !!! Again He can mean nothing else here in that statement can He..??.

As offered before - IF anyone still has doubts (logic is always our ally) - then please go read for the Self the ORIGINAL gospel of John (google "secret John") - .and see as said before, EVERYTHING explained start to finish - it will leave no room for doubts at all - the Hebrew god is not - can not ever be - the Father that Christ alone teaches us of - He proved His claim with MIRACLES that no priest for Yhvh could ever possibly match - and when the priesthood realised all this as we know they MURDERED HIM - then set about literally eradicating and destroying His truth - replacing it the world over with BOGUS man made scripture that many here love to quote endlessly without comprehension and that twists His original message completely out of context and so ensures that PRIESTHOOD and religion remains dominant power and authority here.. All the religious adherants still HAVE BEEN TRICKED - just as He openly warned you (all) - THAT god is NOT Our Father

 

[Brickjectivity]

After Simon said to Jesus "You are the Son of God", Jesus replied "thou art Peter (meaning stone), on this rock I will build my church". What did he mean? This could be taken two or three ways. Did Jesus mean he would build his church on the solid truth, a rock of truth "thou art the Son of God", Did he mean he would he build his church on Peter, or did he mean both?

Which brings up a related question. Why wouldn't Jesus call himself the Son of God?

I have heard the Vatican says it means Christ would build his church on Peter and justifies "Apostolic successsion". Somehow even protestant churches are saying the same. (did the Vatican secretly subvert the Protestant churches?)
The bible says you are all equal and one is your Father, (teacher, rabbi, head), Christ who is in heaven. And in many places calls Jesus "the rock". and not to add to or take away from scripture.

Could it mean both? Jesus is the big ROCK, the spiritual Father, and Peter is the little rock, head of the mundane, material or earthly side. If that was so wouldn't Jesus have said "on these rocks I will build my church"?

This particular scripture is highly politicized by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. I would not take seriously anything that they said about it publicly. I also would not take seriously anyone who claimed apostolic succession of any kind whatsoever, since it is exacly the opposite of the meaning of the Rock.

The Rock to which Jesus alludes appears in Daniel in the vision of Nebuchadnezzar. It is a rock made without hands that replaces the kingdoms that are made with hands. So when Jesus names peter 'Rock' and says his government will be built upon that rock, I suggest he is alluding to the vision in Daniel. Apostolic succession is the opposite idea, as it portrays authority passed from person to person. It is like a statue where one beautiful tier is built upon another. The Rock comes from heaven and smashes everything. Its from heaven like manna just zooming in out of nowhere. Its the end of orders of people controlling other people not the foundation of it. It makes zero sense to say Peter is the foundation of a succession of authoritative apostles.

The Rock also appears in Isaiah 28 from which comes the famous phrase "Do this, do that, a rule for this, a rule for that; a little here, a little there" which Isaiah styles a covenant with death. The LORD rejects rule of people and the foundations made by people and says "See, I lay a stone in Zion" and "I will make justice the measuring line..." and puts this directly opposite of and counter to "a rule for this, a rule for that." The apostolic succession is completely opposite of the concept of the stone that the LORD puts in Zion in Isaiah 28. Its, again, ridiculous to take Jesus statement to Peter and fashion it into a chain of succession that completely undoes the concept of the Rock.

 

[Kemosloby]

This particular scripture is highly politicized by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. I would not take seriously anything that they said about it publicly. I also would not take seriously anyone who claimed apostolic succession of any kind whatsoever, since it is exacly the opposite of the meaning of the Rock.

The Rock to which Jesus alludes appears in Daniel in the vision of Nebuchadnezzar. It is a rock made without hands that replaces the kingdoms that are made with hands. So when Jesus names peter 'Rock' and says his government will be built upon that rock, I suggest he is alluding to the vision in Daniel. Apostolic succession is the opposite idea, as it portrays authority passed from person to person. It is like a statue where one beautiful tier is built upon another. The Rock comes from heaven and smashes everything. Its from heaven like manna just zooming in out of nowhere. Its the end of orders of people controlling other people not the foundation of it. It makes zero sense to say Peter is the foundation of a succession of authoritative apostles.

The Rock also appears in Isaiah 28 from which comes the famous phrase "Do this, do that, a rule for this, a rule for that; a little here, a little there" which Isaiah styles a covenant with death. The LORD rejects rule of people and the foundations made by people and says "See, I lay a stone in Zion" and "I will make justice the measuring line..." and puts this directly opposite of and counter to "a rule for this, a rule for that." The apostolic succession is completely opposite of the concept of the stone that the LORD puts in Zion in Isaiah 28. Its, again, ridiculous to take Jesus statement to Peter and fashion it into a chain of succession that completely undoes the concept of the Rock.

Thanks, that was awesome. Been looking for the Rock in Daniel connection since I heard the song "Daniel saw the Stone" by Rev. Isaiah Shelton from the Goodbye Babylon collection

 

[Brickjectivity]

Thanks, that was awesome. Been looking for the Rock in Daniel connection since I heard the song "Daniel saw the Stone" by Rev. Isaiah Shelton from the Goodbye Babylon collection

Thanks though I would take it with a grain of salt if I were you, and I may be way off about the bit in Isaiah 28. It is a heavily used chapter in the gospels and in Paul's letters. There are plenty of allusions to it. What is happening in 28 is the rulers of the city are not giving justice properly. For one thing they apparently aren't respecting the Sabbath, and he calls them scoffers. They won't let their workers rest. Isaiah says the priests and prophets are drunk and vomiting (though not literally drunk or literally vomiting) and he suggests that the city's leaders are like babes and will be taught justice by foreigners. These leaders are the ones who Isaiah says have made a covenant with death. The stone appears in the middle of this conversation and seems to me to be the same as Nebuchadnezzar's stone, but its certainly debateable. Maybe its some other stone, because he doesn't literally say what stone it is.

 

[Kemosloby]

Thanks though I would take it with a grain of salt if I were you, and I may be way off about the bit in Isaiah 28. It is a heavily used chapter in the gospels and in Paul's letters. There are plenty of allusions to it. What is happening in 28 is the rulers of the city are not giving justice properly. For one thing they apparently aren't respecting the Sabbath, and he calls them scoffers. They won't let their workers rest. Isaiah says the priests and prophets are drunk and vomiting (though not literally drunk or literally vomiting) and he suggests that the city's leaders are like babes and will be taught justice by foreigners. These leaders are the ones who Isaiah says have made a covenant with death. The stone appears in the middle of this conversation and seems to me to be the same as Nebuchadnezzar's stone, but its certainly debateable. Maybe its some other stone, because he doesn't literally say what stone it is.

Well the song writers saw it that way. Daniel saw the stone by Rev. Isaiah Shelton, not the one by Phish

 

[e.r.m.]

After Simon said to Jesus "You are the Son of God", Jesus replied "thou art Peter (meaning stone), on this rock I will build my church". What did he mean? This could be taken two or three ways. Did Jesus mean he would build his church on the solid truth, a rock of truth "thou art the Son of God", Did he mean he would he build his church on Peter, or did he mean both?

Which brings up a related question. Why wouldn't Jesus call himself the Son of God?

I have heard the Vatican says it means Christ would build his church on Peter and justifies "Apostolic successsion". Somehow even protestant churches are saying the same. (did the Vatican secretly subvert the Protestant churches?)
The bible says you are all equal and one is your Father, (teacher, rabbi, head), Christ who is in heaven. And in many places calls Jesus "the rock". and not to add to or take away from scripture.

Could it mean both? Jesus is the big ROCK, the spiritual Father, and Peter is the little rock, head of the mundane, material or earthly side. If that was so wouldn't Jesus have said "on these rocks I will build my church"?

I think by the rock He meant himself, not both.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Hi Folks..

Ben Avraham;

Ah my friend - look at the THINGS HE DID SAY - and see clearly - He has NO AFFILIATION whatsoever to THAT god - the logic and implication of HIS OWN WORDS as recorded FAITHFULLY by those who ACTUALLY walked and talked with Him DAILY make that abundantly clear beyond dispute...LOOK at the OBVIOUS - from Judas first -.

The bold emphasis is mine of course to draw your attention to that which should be plain and obvious to all but the closed indocrinated mind...Christ speaking DIRECTLY to Judas - http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_pdf/GospelofJudas.pdf - makes it UNDENIABLE - this spirit He teaches of here is SECRET He said - NEVER BEFORE ENCOUNTERED..I do so hate to have to repeat my Self, but once again - let it sink in and SEE the IMPLICATIONS - REALISE this simply can NOT BE Yhvh - IMPOSSIBLE !!!

Secrets of a NEW SPIRITUAL REALM that NONE have ever known before - NOT EVEN THE ANGELS know of THIS truth He just told you (all) clearly...Secrets of a new unknown SPIRIT that He says clearly has NEVER BEEN GIVEN ANY NAME !!! Understand then - no way - imopssible - it is NOT Yhvh - it is NOT the Hebrew god - can NOT be that one as He just told you (all) plainly and adamantly that HIS Father is COMPLETELY UNKNOWN - and yet as we know, the Jews ALREADY know Yhvh INTIMATELY.... Look - at this point the Disciples themselves ARE JEWS and already worship THAT god along with everybody else - and yet here He just told them that THEIR god is NOT HIS FATHER and He will tell them now these SECRETS that NONE HAVE EVER KNOWN !!! By Christ own direct words we see that the Father is NOT the Hebrew god Yhvh - and look it is UNDENIABLE - just see the things He says repeatedly, makes it very clear and indeed undeniable - He speaks so plainly in the ORIGINAL scripture that He logically can not mean anything else, can He..??......

Look - this isnt me PeteC-UK making this stuff up Folks - lol - this is the ORIGINAL TRUTH that Christ delivered directly - the truth they MURDERED HIM FOR !!!

Need more proof - easily provided - from Thomas also - again ORIGINAL and DIRECT teaching Christ to Disciple - LOOK and again see clear logic and its implications - undeniable to all but the closed indoctrinated mind :

OOPS !!!! Whats that..?...Seems I was right after all - Look close and see CHRIST IS NOT A JEW !!! Look CLOSELY - He tells the disciples that THEY are like JEWS - but see, He doesnt say IAM A JEW - doesnt claim ANY kinship with the Jews at all - instead He distances Himself from them - SEPERATES HIMSELF FROM THEM and makes it clear He is NOT like the Jews when He says explicitly the disciples do not understand Him because THEY THINK LIKE JEWS - clearly see the IMPLICATION once again - THEY ARE JEWS - HE IS NOT - do try to let it sink in !! Again, He can not mean anything else by that statement can He..??...

Yet again, more talk of SECRETS - He emphasises this time after time - HIS truth - NEW never before known - truth of Yhvh though - old news, fully disclosed and at this time please remember the god is SILENT - do let it sink in deep Folks - they know ALL about their "god" - many many prophets from it - then it declares to them all it will go silent now (after Malachi 400 years BEFORE CHRIST) the god stops speaking to the Jews entirely - Christ comes and delivers a NEW TRUTH that shows that god to be entirely bogus - THIS is why the god went silent anticipating the Christ intervention - this is why Christ says NO ONE KNOWS THE TRUTH because the god lied and deceived them all - and when that deception is revealed the "god" literally gave up all authority here TO the Christ and has NEVER been heard from since.....Christ TRUTH alone explains it all without any discrepancy or confusion - NOT THE FATHER - yhvh IS a lying trickster DEMI god that covets power and authority over us - Christ came to oust that one and replace it with the legitimate Divine truth - hence all this talk of secrets etc etc...and hence the "god" goes SILENT in the face of this direct threat from Christ and it is the PRIESTHOOD that acts to KILL the Christ.......

Yet again CLEAR and UNDENIABLE truth that tells us logically and undeniably, HE IS NOT A JEW and has NO AFFILIATION to THAT god...Look - give the Emporer that which its due He says - then give the GOD also that which its due - and then there is CHRIST - SEPERATE from BOTH Emporer AND god...Clearly, He wishes to express His SEPERATION from the JEWISH TRADITION yet again - clearly He says the agenda of BOTH Emporer (mortal world) AND "god" (Jewish tradition) are SEPERATE to HIS agenda !!! Again He can mean nothing else here in that statement can He..??.

As offered before - IF anyone still has doubts (logic is always our ally) - then please go read for the Self the ORIGINAL gospel of John (google "secret John") - .and see as said before, EVERYTHING explained start to finish - it will leave no room for doubts at all - the Hebrew god is not - can not ever be - the Father that Christ alone teaches us of - He proved His claim with MIRACLES that no priest for Yhvh could ever possibly match - and when the priesthood realised all this as we know they MURDERED HIM - then set about literally eradicating and destroying His truth - replacing it the world over with BOGUS man made scripture that many here love to quote endlessly without comprehension and that twists His original message completely out of context and so ensures that PRIESTHOOD and religion remains dominant power and authority here.. All the religious adherants still HAVE BEEN TRICKED - just as He openly warned you (all) - THAT god is NOT Our Father

Never say for sure that Jesus said this or that in the NT because neither he nor his disciples ever wrote any thing in the NT. The whole NT was written by Hellenists former disciples of Paul. The Scriptures Jesus used to refer to as the Word of God was the Tanach. The NT he never even dreamed it would ever rise.

 

[Ben Avraham]

Not in my understanding of ''Christian'' religion/theology. There is almost no similarity, however, there is some similarity to other /pagan traditions. That being said, 'Christian' theology has been interpreted by various writers, even Bible translators, in different ways. Therefore, you can make arguments based on those ideas, of course. That however , does not mean that actual Christian belief is ''Hellenistic'' mythology.

Really! Let's pick up one. The gospel of Matthew, for instance. The Hellenist who wrote that gospel confessed the Hellenistic doctrine of the Greek demigod in Mat. 1:18 when he said that Jesus was born of God with Mary without any biological interference with Joseph. That's the best description we have of the Hellenistic doctrine of the demigod which is the son of a god with an earthly woman. This is Hellenistic mythology and there is no way to escape it. Since that gospel was written much later after the Letters of Paul, he took from Paul who preached that Jesus was the son of God. (Acts 9:20) This is just one of several other Hellenistic evidences in the NT.

 

[Ben Avraham]

That only makes sense if your god is an Olympian - which he is not.

The Olympian Pantheon of Greek Mythology is only part of the Universe that HaShem caused to exist.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Follks..

Ben Avraham;

Never say for sure that Jesus said this or that in the NT because neither he nor his disciples ever wrote any thing in the NT. The whole NT was written by Hellenists former disciples of Paul. The Scriptures Jesus used to refer to as the Word of God was the Tanach. The NT he never even dreamed it would ever rise.

WHAT..?.. Do you even bother to read what other people say to you..?..lol... if you did then you would know that I of all the people here AGREE with your statement above whole heartedly and ALWAYS give the same advise my Self, and I NEVER rely on the canon AT ALL - NOT EVER - as I know and tell you (all) repeatedly that it IS an outright FRAUD and a twisting of truth and neither Christ NOR disciple are speaking directly in the NT version of their respective gospels.. Addressing that statement to ME of all people -is like trying to teach your granny to suck eggs, as they say lol

But NO - you are quite mistaken when you say it was written by "disciples of Paul" - and indeed Paul and all those other "church leaders" are IRRELEVANT here - as ACTUALLY - everything that is contained in the bible canon is sanctioned by one man alone - Constantines chief aide - Eusibius if memory serves - this man was given the sole task of editing the HUNDREDS of PRE EXISTANT and ORIGINAL tomes from over a hundred different "christian sects" - and from which the canon gospels are MANUFACTURED......Literally - this guy Eusibius - was ordered by Constantine to sift through all those HUNDREDS of manuscripts - and to piece together a harmonious complimentary narrative from them all - the aim of this was clearly stated to force all these SEPERATE religions to come together as ONE religion with ONE sanctioned set of doctrines, all GOVERNED AND CHOSEN BY ROME and NO religious leader had ANY say whatsoever as to what the new "bible" would actually contain....A ROMAN EMPORER - quite literally Folks - MADE UP the traditional bible - he took all those hundreds of ORIGINAL authentic tomes and literally "cut n paste" a bit from each as necassary , as their agenda dictated, to present just FOUR so called "canon gospels" which match and agree often even WORD FOR WORD a direct copying one to the others, for as said they are MANUFACTURED TO ORDER - cut n paste to suit a POLITICAL AGENDA and LEGITIMATE spiritual truth was the very last thing on their mind......

NO religious leader had ANY SAY WHATSOEVER in the content of the sanctioned bible...The four canon gosples themselves DID NOT EVEN EXIST - in their CURRENT form - until after this intervention by Constantine - FOURTH CENTURY - yes that IS like 350 years AFTER the events happened, then ROME MANUFACTURED YOUR BIBLE and ENFORCED it upon the world as the ONLY permitted truth !!

Having accomplished this they then set about hunting down and destroying ALL SPIRITIAL TRUTH - any and everything that was "not catholic" - not sanctioned by ROME - they hunted it down destroyed it and mirdered any who would not bow to them...Thus they ensured that ORIGINAL truth was all but lost to us - and thus they ensured that BOGUS catholic religious version became accepted as the ONLY truth....Nowadays of course, we mostly all adopt the bogus AS the ONLY truth - and when such a one as I comes along and sets it all straight, we are often hated critisised and despised for the truths we bring... Thats ok though - to be expected - my mate Christ already warned us all that would be done "in His name" - but NOT by His true followers - those with ears to hear

I tell you again clearly - Christ does not advocate either the Hebrew god or its old tradtions - HATE your parents and THEIR ways - DAMN those religious teachers who MISLEAD YOU ON PURPOSE HE said....QUIT THE TEMPLE ENTIRELY - no more babbling like pagans - no more useless prayers and rituals - no more catechism and bowing supplications begging requests and favours..

He DID say it ALL and more besides - So I ask you (All) TWO serious questions then -WHY DO YOU THINK HE SAYS SUCH THINGS..???.......REPEATEDLY and OFTEN says such things - WHY..??...What IS He getting at..??... The answer is blindingly obvious - but I genuinely would like to hear some other explanations from the doubters or religious adherants..???...THINK about it - and answer me if you can..WHY does He say ANY of the negative things about that god and its religion..??.. (and ONLY EVER about THAT god and its religion - is NEVER so critical of anything or anybody else ever) - serious question - I want you all to think here - WHY does he REPEATEDLY say such things..??...

And second question - obviously related - WHY DID THE JEWS MURDER HIM..????.... The answers here should be interesting to say the least....lol.....But I tell you truth - if you can answer both questions with SAME answer - then you are on the track to find HIS truth - for I tell you straight just as HE told them straight - they are ENEMIES - as their god is NOT HIS Father

 

[Ben Avraham]

Hi Follks..

Ben Avraham;

WHAT..?.. Do you even bother to read what other people say to you..?..lol... if you did then you would know that I of all the people here AGREE with your statement above whole heartedly and ALWAYS give the same advise my Self, and I NEVER rely on the canon AT ALL - NOT EVER - as I know and tell you (all) repeatedly that it IS an outright FRAUD and a twisting of truth and neither Christ NOR disciple are speaking directly in the NT version of their respective gospels.. Addressing that statement to ME of all people -is like trying to teach your granny to suck eggs, as they say lol

But NO - you are quite mistaken when you say it was written by "disciples of Paul" - and indeed Paul and all those other "church leaders" are IRRELEVANT here - as ACTUALLY - everything that is contained in the bible canon is sanctioned by one man alone - Constantines chief aide - Eusibius if memory serves - this man was given the sole task of editing the HUNDREDS of PRE EXISTANT and ORIGINAL tomes from over a hundred different "christian sects" - and from which the canon gospels are MANUFACTURED......Literally - this guy Eusibius - was ordered by Constantine to sift through all those HUNDREDS of manuscripts - and to piece together a harmonious complimentary narrative from them all - the aim of this was clearly stated to force all these SEPERATE religions to come together as ONE religion with ONE sanctioned set of doctrines, all GOVERNED AND CHOSEN BY ROME and NO religious leader had ANY say whatsoever as to what the new "bible" would actually contain....A ROMAN EMPORER - quite literally Folks - MADE UP the traditional bible - he took all those hundreds of ORIGINAL authentic tomes and literally "cut n paste" a bit from each as necassary , as their agenda dictated, to present just FOUR so called "canon gospels" which match and agree often even WORD FOR WORD a direct copying one to the others, for as said they are MANUFACTURED TO ORDER - cut n paste to suit a POLITICAL AGENDA and LEGITIMATE spiritual truth was the very last thing on their mind......

NO religious leader had ANY SAY WHATSOEVER in the content of the sanctioned bible...The four canon gosples themselves DID NOT EVEN EXIST - in their CURRENT form - until after this intervention by Constantine - FOURTH CENTURY - yes that IS like 350 years AFTER the events happened, then ROME MANUFACTURED YOUR BIBLE and ENFORCED it upon the world as the ONLY permitted truth !!

Having accomplished this they then set about hunting down and destroying ALL SPIRITIAL TRUTH - any and everything that was "not catholic" - not sanctioned by ROME - they hunted it down destroyed it and mirdered any who would not bow to them...Thus they ensured that ORIGINAL truth was all but lost to us - and thus they ensured that BOGUS catholic religious version became accepted as the ONLY truth....Nowadays of course, we mostly all adopt the bogus AS the ONLY truth - and when such a one as I comes along and sets it all straight, we are often hated critisised and despised for the truths we bring... Thats ok though - to be expected - my mate Christ already warned us all that would be done "in His name" - but NOT by His true followers - those with ears to hear

I tell you again clearly - Christ does not advocate either the Hebrew god or its old tradtions - HATE your parents and THEIR ways - DAMN those religious teachers who MISLEAD YOU ON PURPOSE HE said....QUIT THE TEMPLE ENTIRELY - no more babbling like pagans - no more useless prayers and rituals - no more catechism and bowing supplications begging requests and favours..

He DID say it ALL and more besides - So I ask you (All) TWO serious questions then -WHY DO YOU THINK HE SAYS SUCH THINGS..???.......REPEATEDLY and OFTEN says such things - WHY..??...What IS He getting at..??... The answer is blindingly obvious - but I genuinely would like to hear some other explanations from the doubters or religious adherants..???...THINK about it - and answer me if you can..WHY does He say ANY of the negative things about that god and its religion..??.. (and ONLY EVER about THAT god and its religion - is NEVER so critical of anything or anybody else ever) - serious question - I want you all to think here - WHY does he REPEATEDLY say such things..??...

And second question - obviously related - WHY DID THE JEWS MURDER HIM..????.... The answers here should be interesting to say the least....lol.....But I tell you truth - if you can answer both questions with SAME answer - then you are on the track to find HIS truth - for I tell you straight just as HE told them straight - they are ENEMIES - as their god is NOT HIS Father

I think your frustration is that you suspect that we are not reading your post from the first paragraph to the last. You're probably right but because you write too much as if you were writing a book. Please, write less and that suspicion of yours will die down.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

That only makes sense if your god is an Olympian - which he is not.

It also doesn't make sense because the Greeks are hardly the only one with a pantheon where gods are born and can die. Yahweh is related to Yaw/Yam from Canaanite mythology and Him and Baal and friends were all kids (more or less) of El.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks..

Ben Avraham ; Ah my friend - there is no "frustration" here - did you not see my little "lol" before..?...Iam - GENUINELY amused - by you (all) - at YOUR(s) obvious frustration as you (all) try to work out the twisted truth the religion puts before you.. Now, nobody here is expressing any serious religious concerns, so I will allow my self to be amused here at your naivete - like we may laugh at the child repeating stupid errors until eventually the obvious dawns - eventually we will all laugh together ONCE that truth hits home

And I know you probably Do read it in full lol - however - you simply fail to comprehend - its not allowed to sink in too deep as well, those of a religious mind are already indoctrinated and have this "knee jerk" reaction to anything that jars against their adopted world view..Its - understandable - you are just doing as you told - as you learned from religion - are clinging blindly to your "god" as your mind has been indoctrinated to do ..I understand how the mind works - so no need for any frustration here - lol - just persevere He says - speak truth plainly - let them take whatever they need... This is why I say such things bolded as "see the IMPLICATIONS" - take time - work out the details - allow it to settle - follow it through....If you reject it after then thats still fine - but look - even children and their childish behaviour becomes tiresome after a while..lol...you know - like when the child shuts the eyes hands over ears refuses to see the real world..?....CUTE - but petulant and ultimately futile ...lol..eventually even the most stubborn will have to face the truth if they seek the Father in earnest

eventually you just tell the child - GROW UP and deal with it - yes..?...lol...And so - perhaps you would like to do just that - deal with the TWO QUESTIONS I asked specifically..??...I mean - if you can....My only "suspicion" is that you cant really answer such hard questions as they require looking HONESTLY at things presented, and that would require stepping OUT of the indoctrinated mind - my suspicion then would be that you are not capable of achieving that - yet - hence I will continue to present the obvious truths for you (all) until such time as your mind finally becomes free and you begin to think for the Self

Kelly; Yer that s very true....All those gods - every pantheon of every culture - all trace right back to Sumer and those now famous Annunaki...Not even "gods" - but flesh and blood creatures that once walked and talked side by side - even married and interbred with us - HERE is the start of ALL mans religion - especially the Hebrew religion we discuss here as ALL the major characters and events are recorded in Sumer FIRST, like thousands of years BEFORE any Hebrew nation ever existed....Its ALL a twisted truth start to finish.....And actually - the things Christ says directly..?..FULLY in accord with that MUCH earlier Sumer narrative...Go figure....

 

[12jtartar]

After Simon said to Jesus "You are the Son of God", Jesus replied "thou art Peter (meaning stone), on this rock I will build my church". What did he mean? This could be taken two or three ways. Did Jesus mean he would build his church on the solid truth, a rock of truth "thou art the Son of God", Did he mean he would he build his church on Peter, or did he mean both?

Which brings up a related question. Why wouldn't Jesus call himself the Son of God?

I have heard the Vatican says it means Christ would build his church on Peter and justifies "Apostolic successsion". Somehow even protestant churches are saying the same. (did the Vatican secretly subvert the Protestant churches?)
The bible says you are all equal and one is your Father, (teacher, rabbi, head), Christ who is in heaven. And in many places calls Jesus "the rock". and not to add to or take away from scripture.

Could it mean both? Jesus is the big ROCK, the spiritual Father, and Peter is the little rock, head of the mundane, material or earthly side. If that was so wouldn't Jesus have said "on these rocks I will build my church"?

Kemosloby,
When Jesus said on This Rock, Jesus was talking about himself being the Rock on which the church or Congregation would be built. In Greek Peter was petros, meaning a piece of rock, while Jesus spoke of himself as Petra, meaning a rock mass. Other Scriptures pointing to Jesus as being the rock on which the church was built, 1Corinthians 3:11, Ephesians 2:20, 1Peter 2:4-8.
As for Apostolic Succession, there is no such thing!!! Since Jesus was resurrected he can die no longer, so because he lives forever there is no need of successors, Romans 6:9, Hebrews 7:23-25.

 

[Kemosloby]

Kemosloby,
When Jesus said on This Rock, Jesus was talking about himself being the Rock on which the church or Congregation would be built. In Greek Peter was petros, meaning a piece of rock, while Jesus spoke of himself as Petra, meaning a rock mass. Other Scriptures pointing to Jesus as being the rock on which the church was built, 1Corinthians 3:11, Ephesians 2:20, 1Peter 2:4-8.
As for Apostolic Succession, there is no such thing!!! Since Jesus was resurrected he can die no longer, so because he lives forever there is no need of successors, Romans 6:9, Hebrews 7:23-25.

Correct, but Old Testament also tells of Jesus as the Rock, metaphorically. The Rock that Moses struck with his staff for instance; the Rock split open and water ran out of the Rock, symbolic of Jesus on the cross. The Rock in Daniel, that came rollin' through Babylon. Is probably referring to the second coming Babylon, a Mystery Babylon...or the New World Order. As in the song, Daniel saw the Stone by Rev. Isaish Shelton, not Phish.

Daniel saw the stone that was hewed out the mountain,
Yes, Daniel saw the stone that came rollin' through Babylon
Daniel saw the stone that was hewed out the mountain,
And he joined that heavenly band.

Other lyrics, David saw the stone that was hewed out the mountain.

 

[metis]

"Simon" was renamed "Peter" ("Kephas" in Aramaic) by Jesus, which does mean "rock", but when the Aramaic was translated into Koine Greek, there was a masculine/feminine problem, whereas no such problem existed in the Aramaic. Since names in scriptural terms have meanings behind them, it's pretty clear what Jesus was saying, and indeed that's what happened as Peter had a special designation as the spiritual leader of "the Way". And this shows up with some o f the other narratives whereas Jesus gives Peter his duty ("feed my sheep, ...") and the fact that when some of the apostles are listed, Peter is almost always mentioned first, and at times we'll read "Peter and the others..."). Also, it was Peter who was confronted by Paul dealing with some possible changes that he thought should be made.

Obviously, James was the organizational leader and Judas the treasurer.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Peter = "pebble"

Jesus = "Big rock that will crush all who oppose"

Peter = dead

Jesus = alive and saving

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

There are many places in the Bible where Jesus is called the "rock". And why would God's church be built on a mortal human and not on a devine being like Jesus. Peter's name is a play on words and means something like a small stone or pebble. Peter is just a small part of God's plan but the larger part, the rock, is Jesus. A church built on Peter would be Peter's church and not God's church.