"Upon this rock", which rock?

[Fallen Prophet]

Its an age old debate but in my opinion Peter wasn't the "rock". Since the NT books were written well into Pauls heavy influence on recollections and new believers, the exchange often quoted between Jesus and the apostles at Caesarea Philippi Matthew 16:13-20 may not have been accurately recalled anyway. That is to say that the writing (and subsequent editing) of the Gospels was done with a Pauline bias.

The "Rock" in context was the fact that the Father revealed to the apostles the identity of the Son. Faith in the Father was the central theme of the original Gospel. Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 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.”


The rock wasn't fallible Peter, it was the FAITH in the Father that Jesus had been preaching for 3+ years before being killed due to the original, pre-cross Gospel!


It was really Peter on the day of Pentecost who began to preach about the latest and most spectacular of all the miracles associated with Jesus, returning from death on his own volition as he said he could and would; the resurrection of Jesus. It was Peter who began the new Gospel about Jesus which replaced the original Gospel of Jesus, the "good news" about the Father, that we are ALL sons and daughters of the living God. That God is personal to each one of us, not a national God and certainly not for an especially chosen few. "Christ and him crucified" replaced Jesus Gospel of The Kingdom of Heaven.


Paul was a student of Peter. Paul never having known Jesus expanded upon the ideas of Peter and further developed the new Gospel into a new religion about Jesus. Paul's atonement doctrine was appealing to the Pagan religions considering that they already had similar beliefs. Plus the atonement doctrine had the effect of ending Temple sacrifices for the newly emerging Christian church.


So Paul's Gospel, Christianity is really a version of Peters Gospel that was a version of Jesus' Gospel, The Kingdom of Heaven.



.

You had me up until you started talking about Paul.

I believe that the "rock" is revelation received by God the Father through the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ - the Son of the living God.

 

[wizanda]

The rock wasn't fallible Peter, it was the FAITH in the Father that Jesus had been preaching for 3+ years before being killed due to the original, pre-cross Gospel!

I believe when Yeshua/Yehoshua called Simon a small pebble (petros), it was in fulfilment of Zechariah 3:9, and Isaiah 8:14-16...

In the Parable of the Seed Sower, the seed that falls on 'Stony-ground' is plural of petros, petrodes; implying that Yeshua is prophesying Simon who had a Pharisaic nature, would mislead people.

Yeshua (Salvation - H3444) is stated as the Rock (petra) in many places in the Tanakh (Deuteronomy 32:15), and petros is like a pebble or stumbling stone, that trips people up.

In the Parable of building upon the Rock (Matthew 7:24–27), there is the option of building upon the firm foundations of Yeshua's teachings Vs building on the shore, where pebbles are the unstable ground.

In my opinion.

 

[metis]

I believe when Yeshua/Yehoshua called Simon a small pebble (petros), it was in fulfilment of Zechariah 3:9, and Isaiah 8:14-16...

In the Parable of the Seed Sower, the seed that falls on 'Stony-ground' is plural of petros, petrodes; implying that Yeshua is prophesying Simon who had a Pharisaic nature, would mislead people.

Yeshua (Salvation - H3444) is stated as the Rock (petra) in many places in the Tanakh (Deuteronomy 32:15), and petros is like a pebble or stumbling stone, that trips people up.

In the Parable of building upon the Rock (Matthew 7:24–27), there is the option of building upon the firm foundations of Yeshua's teachings Vs building on the shore, where pebbles are the unstable ground.

In my opinion.

The word "kephas" does not distinguish between a rock or a stone. Also, it was Jesus who changed Simon's name to Kephas, thus I think it's likely he was using a play on words.

 

[wizanda]

The word "kephas" does not distinguish between a rock or a stone.

In my understanding that addition of using a Chaldean word (cephas) in the Greek, was made up after in the Gospel of John & by Paul to prevent people prophetically understanding, that Yehoshua named Simon a small stone like a pebble (petros) in reference to prophecy.

In Matthew 16:18 it is itemizing Isaiah 8:14-16, where there is both a stumbling stone (petros), and the rock (petra)...

Where Yeshua/Immanuel (petra) 'sealed up his testimony among the disciples', knowing that Pharisaic corruption was prophesied.

Take into account that straight after the only time in the Synoptic Gospels Yehoshua calls Simon petros (Zechariah 3:9), he called Simon 'satan' for 'rebuking' him, when explaining prophetically he'd cut off Jerusalem by his death (Zechariah 3:1-2).

In my opinion.

 

[metis]

In my understanding that addition of using a Chaldean word (cephas) in the Greek, was made up after in the Gospel of John & by Paul to prevent people prophetically understanding, that Yehoshua named Simon a small stone like a pebble (petros) in reference to prophecy.

It was in Aramaic, not Chaldean, and there is no evidence I've ever seen that suggests that such an alteration was ever made.

Where Yeshua/Immanuel (petra) 'sealed up his testimony among the disciples', knowing that Pharisaic corruption was prophesied.

Depends on what you are referring to as there always was criticism of some people not following Torah "properly". The Pharisees were a very diversified group, thus it not right to blame all of them. Jesus clearly was a Pharisee based on what he believed and taught.

Take into account that straight after the only time in the Synoptic Gospels Yehoshua calls Simon petros (Zechariah 3:9), he called Simon 'satan' for 'rebuking' him, when explaining prophetically he'd cut off Jerusalem by his death (Zechariah 3:1-2).

If that were to be true, then I guess we should all rip our OT out our Bibles and throw it into the garbage as haShem promised to never forget his people [Jews] and that Jerusalem must always be respected.

 

[Colt]

It was in Aramaic, not Chaldean, and there is no evidence I've ever seen that suggests that such an alteration was ever made.

Depends on what you are referring to as there always was criticism of some people not following Torah "properly". The Pharisees were a very diversified group, thus it not right to blame all of them. Jesus clearly was a Pharisee based on what he believed and taught.

If that were to be true, then I guess we should all rip our OT out our Bibles and throw it into the garbage as haShem promised to never forget his people [Jews] and that Jerusalem must always be respected.

The authors of the Old Testament scriptures were Israelites, they concocted the "chosen people" claim as well as Jewish nationalism.

 

[metis]

The authors of the Old Testament scriptures were Israelites, they concocted the "chosen people" claim as well as Jewish nationalism.

Don't you think that "the Way" [the early Church] felt that they were the "chosen people"?

 

[Colt]

Don't you think that "the Way" [the early Church] felt that they were the "chosen people"?

Yes, I believe that they believed that. I believe that Muslims believe that God wrote the Quran.

The New Testament is the record of Jewish men who became the followers of a fellow Jew named Jesus as they understood him through the lens of their former theology of Judaism. New religions don't just "suddenly happen", they are often the result of a new religious teacher as understood relative to their former religion. Compromises are often made after the leader is gone in order to fit the new wine into the old wine skins.

Specifically, I would say that Abrahm was a chosen individual. The tragedy of Judaism as it evolved was that it became more or a less a religion all about being chosen yet losing sight of what they were chosen for. A spiritual kingdom morphed into a material kingdom. The expectations of a spiritual deliverer morphed into a priest/prophet/king to take Davids throne.

 

[metis]

The tragedy of Judaism as it evolved was that it became more or a less a religion all about being chosen yet losing sight of what they were chosen for. A spiritual kingdom morphed into a material kingdom.

Balderdash, and the above is actually quite anti-Semitic as you've stereotyped the Jewish people.

 

[Colt]

Balderdash, and the above is actually quite anti-Semitic as you've stereotyped the Jewish people.

Anti-Sematic? I don't worship the Jews as Christians have been trained to do. They are just normal people, no better and no worse than anyone else.

Was Jesus anti-sematic?

“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it and whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”

Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them, but when they sought to lay hands on Him, they feared the multitudes, because they took Him for a prophet.”


Pilate went back into the Praetorium, summoned Jesus, and asked Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?”34“Are you saying this on your own,” Jesus asked, “or did others tell you about Me?”35“Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed You over to me. What have You done?”36Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world; if it were, My servants would fight to prevent My arrest by the Jews. But now My kingdom is not of this realm.”37“Then You are a king!” Pilate said.

“You say that I am a king,” Jesus answered. “For this reason I was born and have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to My voice.”

 

[metis]

Anti-Sematic? I don't worship the Jews as Christians have been trained to do. They are just normal people, no better and no worse than anyone else.

Was Jesus anti-sematic?

“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it and whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”

Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them, but when they sought to lay hands on Him, they feared the multitudes, because they took Him for a prophet.”


Pilate went back into the Praetorium, summoned Jesus, and asked Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?”34“Are you saying this on your own,” Jesus asked, “or did others tell you about Me?”35“Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed You over to me. What have You done?”36Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world; if it were, My servants would fight to prevent My arrest by the Jews. But now My kingdom is not of this realm.”37“Then You are a king!” Pilate said.

“You say that I am a king,” Jesus answered. “For this reason I was born and have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to My voice.”

I stand by my statement as you have obviously used an anti-Semitic stereotype of Jews. I belonged to a synagogue for over 20 years, and if one thinks that Jews are all alike then that one is seriously deluded.

 

[Colt]

I stand by my statement as you have obviously used an anti-Semitic stereotype of Jews. I belonged to a synagogue for over 20 years, and if one thinks that Jews are all alike then that one is seriously deluded.

I’ve been talking about Judaism during Jesus’ day but you are hearing something else. Projecting your issues with Jewish people in this age into this discussion is your own problem. And frankly it’s offensive to other cultures to claim that God supports Israel’s racist ethno-state above all others. LoL! Up there on your high horse!

 

[wizanda]

Jesus clearly was a Pharisee based on what he believed and taught.

In my understanding Yeshua was prophesied as an Avatar/Eloh/Divine Being; thus his teachings were more Dharmic, and then Yeshua answering questions on Pharisaic arguments, didn't make him a Pharisee... Especially when I believe it is provable Yeshua stood against the Pharisaic doctrines on multiple principles.

Many of Yeshua's teachings in my understanding align more with the Essenes; such as:

• The Lilly & Raven of the Field being provided for (Matthew 6:25-34, Luke 12:22-32).
• The Essenes using the terminology 'Sons of Light' (Luke 16:8).
• The idea that cleaning the inside leads to direct connection with God (Matthew 23:26-28).
• That God will provide for his servants (Matthew 10:7-10).
• The belief that the 2nd temple would be destroyed for its fake leaders as an abomination; where Yeshua (Teacher of Righteousness), & John the Baptist (One crying in the wilderness, making straight the path of the Lord) came as a final warning before its destruction.
• etc...

If that were to be true, then I guess we should all rip our OT out our Bibles and throw it into the garbage as haShem promised to never forget his people [Jews] and that Jerusalem must always be respected.

If we read the Curse of Moses in Deuteronomy 28; it was placed on all the Tribes of Israel, at the death of Yeshua for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11)...

We can see this took place over the last two thousand years, where they literally eat each other's flesh at the 2nd temple destruction as stated (Zechariah 11:9, Deuteronomy 28:53-55); which to me proves the Tanakh was accurate.

It is also stated in my comprehension, that God placed a Curse on them in multiple places (Hosea 4:6, Hosea 5:5-6, Hosea 5:15, Isaiah 43:28, Isaiah 65:15, Jeremiah 25:18); yet it says they won't read what is stated, they will follow their religious leaders, and Oral Traditions (Isaiah 29:13-14, Isaiah 30:8-14).

The Lord's people praise him (Yehudah), and Yeshua was prophesied as his avatar (Exodus 15:2, Psalms 118, Isaiah 12:2).

In my understanding in Zechariah 11:10 they nullified the Abrahamic covenant by their rejection of their Lord, and in Zechariah 11:12-14 they broke their Sinai covenant, by paying 30 pieces of silver for their Messiah...

Thus Jerusalem was cut off, and them placed into exile as Moses, and the prophets stipulated...

Then from what I understand the Rabbi made up Christianity through John, Paul, and Simon the stumbling stone (petros), emphasizing that they weren't cut off, and rewriting prophecy.

Then I believe the Rabbi have also made up Rabbinic Judaism defaming Yeshua, and rewriting that they're still a chosen people directly contrary to the Tanakh; which I understand is then identified in Ezekiel 20-22, and Deuteronomy 29:19-27, that next God plans on incinerating the lot, for daring to lie to all the nations during their exile amongst them.

In my perception of what is prophesied, the New Jerusalem will be a place of praise after (Zechariah 8:22, Isaiah 2:2-3, Isaiah 62:1-7, Jeremiah 33:7-11), and that those who truly seek the Lord (Yehudah), will be sanctified when the Judgement Day Fire comes.

In my opinion.

 

[Balthazzar]

Its an age old debate but in my opinion Peter wasn't the "rock". Since the NT books were written well into Pauls heavy influence on recollections and new believers, the exchange often quoted between Jesus and the apostles at Caesarea Philippi Matthew 16:13-20 may not have been accurately recalled anyway. That is to say that the writing (and subsequent editing) of the Gospels was done with a Pauline bias.

The "Rock" in context was the fact that the Father revealed to the apostles the identity of the Son. Faith in the Father was the central theme of the original Gospel. Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 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.”


The rock wasn't fallible Peter, it was the FAITH in the Father that Jesus had been preaching for 3+ years before being killed due to the original, pre-cross Gospel!


It was really Peter on the day of Pentecost who began to preach about the latest and most spectacular of all the miracles associated with Jesus, returning from death on his own volition as he said he could and would; the resurrection of Jesus. It was Peter who began the new Gospel about Jesus which replaced the original Gospel of Jesus, the "good news" about the Father, that we are ALL sons and daughters of the living God. That God is personal to each one of us, not a national God and certainly not for an especially chosen few. "Christ and him crucified" replaced Jesus Gospel of The Kingdom of Heaven.


Paul was a student of Peter. Paul never having known Jesus expanded upon the ideas of Peter and further developed the new Gospel into a new religion about Jesus. Paul's atonement doctrine was appealing to the Pagan religions considering that they already had similar beliefs. Plus the atonement doctrine had the effect of ending Temple sacrifices for the newly emerging Christian church.


So Paul's Gospel, Christianity is really a version of Peters Gospel that was a version of Jesus' Gospel, The Kingdom of Heaven.



.

Peter's character may have been the reason. He was like Jesus' bodyguard. Twice, it was written about that Peter filled that role. Once, Jesus called him an enemy (Satan) for insisting it wouldn't happen to him (being killed), then the second time, Peter filled that role when he cut the ear off of the priest's servant just before the Roman troop apprehended Jesus ensuring his crucifixion. Peter was a protector. That's very likely the reason he was deemed the rock by Jesus. His acknowledgement of who Jesus was, may have been an understanding acknowledged of that role.

 

[metis]

I’ve been talking about Judaism during Jesus’ day but you are hearing something else.

Oh, so it's OK to stereotype Jews back then?

And frankly it’s offensive to other cultures to claim that God supports Israel’s racist ethno-state above all others.

Much like it's condescending to claim that Christianity is the only religion that God wanted.

BTW, Judaism didn't and doesn't teach that non-Jews cannot please God, so your bigotry is unwarranted.

LoL! Up there on your high horse!

Well, at least I'm opposed to all forms of anti-Semitism and also to religious bigotry.

fini

 

[metis]

In my understanding Yeshua was prophesied as an Avatar/Eloh/Divine Being; thus his teachings were more Dharmic, and then Yeshua answering questions on Pharisaic arguments, didn't make him a Pharisee... Especially when I believe it is provable Yeshua stood against the Pharisaic doctrines on multiple principles.

Many of Yeshua's teachings in my understanding align more with the Essenes; such as:

• The Lilly & Raven of the Field being provided for (Matthew 6:25-34, Luke 12:22-32).
• The Essenes using the terminology 'Sons of Light' (Luke 16:8).
• The idea that cleaning the inside leads to direct connection with God (Matthew 23:26-28).
• That God will provide for his servants (Matthew 10:7-10).
• The belief that the 2nd temple would be destroyed for its fake leaders as an abomination; where Yeshua (Teacher of Righteousness), & John the Baptist (One crying in the wilderness, making straight the path of the Lord) came as a final warning before its destruction.
• etc...

If we read the Curse of Moses in Deuteronomy 28; it was placed on all the Tribes of Israel, at the death of Yeshua for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11)...

We can see this took place over the last two thousand years, where they literally eat each other's flesh at the 2nd temple destruction as stated (Zechariah 11:9, Deuteronomy 28:53-55); which to me proves the Tanakh was accurate.

It is also stated in my comprehension, that God placed a Curse on them in multiple places (Hosea 4:6, Hosea 5:5-6, Hosea 5:15, Isaiah 43:28, Isaiah 65:15, Jeremiah 25:18); yet it says they won't read what is stated, they will follow their religious leaders, and Oral Traditions (Isaiah 29:13-14, Isaiah 30:8-14).

The Lord's people praise him (Yehudah), and Yeshua was prophesied as his avatar (Exodus 15:2, Psalms 118, Isaiah 12:2).

In my understanding in Zechariah 11:10 they nullified the Abrahamic covenant by their rejection of their Lord, and in Zechariah 11:12-14 they broke their Sinai covenant, by paying 30 pieces of silver for their Messiah...

Thus Jerusalem was cut off, and them placed into exile as Moses, and the prophets stipulated...

Then from what I understand the Rabbi made up Christianity through John, Paul, and Simon the stumbling stone (petros), emphasizing that they weren't cut off, and rewriting prophecy.

Then I believe the Rabbi have also made up Rabbinic Judaism defaming Yeshua, and rewriting that they're still a chosen people directly contrary to the Tanakh; which I understand is then identified in Ezekiel 20-22, and Deuteronomy 29:19-27, that next God plans on incinerating the lot, for daring to lie to all the nations during their exile amongst them.

In my perception of what is prophesied, the New Jerusalem will be a place of praise after (Zechariah 8:22, Isaiah 2:2-3, Isaiah 62:1-7, Jeremiah 33:7-11), and that those who truly seek the Lord (Yehudah), will be sanctified when the Judgement Day Fire comes.

In my opinion.

Please address the points and abstain from essays. Anyways, thanks for your response.

 

[Colt]

Oh, so it's OK to stereotype Jews back then?

Much like it's condescending to claim that Christianity is the only religion that God wanted.

BTW, Judaism didn't and doesn't teach that non-Jews cannot please God, so your bigotry is unwarranted.

Well, at least I'm opposed to all forms of anti-Semitism and also to religious bigotry.

fini

The "chosen people" delusion IS bigotry. Your woke coverings won't protect you.

Stating the history of the Israelites is not a stereotype, it's a fact. Somehow, you've been programed to think that the Israelites are immune from scrutiny?

“Abraham is our father,” they replied.

“If you were children of Abraham,” said Jesus, “you would do the works of Abraham. 40But now you are trying to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham never did such a thing. 41You are doing the works of your father.”

Have you “We are not illegitimate children,” they declared. “Our only Father is God Himself.”42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on My own, but He sent Me.43Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you are unable to accept My message. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out his desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, refusing to uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, because he is a liar and the father of lies. 45But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me!

Todays cancel culture would cancel Jesus!

Have you actually read the Old Testament? If so you must have ignored the many recorded atrocities carried out by the Israelites against others......of coarse God told them to do it......in their own minds!

 

[metis]

The "chosen people" delusion IS bigotry. Your woke coverings won't protect you.

Stating the history of the Israelites is not a stereotype, it's a fact...

Have you actually read the Old Testament? If so you must have ignored the many recorded atrocities carried out by the Israelites against others......of coarse God told them to do it......in their own minds!

So pathetic a post, and apparently you are totally unaware of what's been done in the name of "Christianity" within all major denominations historically.

IOW, "Physician, heal thyself".

 

[Balthazzar]

The "chosen people" delusion IS bigotry. Your woke coverings won't protect you.

Stating the history of the Israelites is not a stereotype, it's a fact. Somehow, you've been programed to think that the Israelites are immune from scrutiny?

“Abraham is our father,” they replied.

“If you were children of Abraham,” said Jesus, “you would do the works of Abraham. 40But now you are trying to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham never did such a thing. 41You are doing the works of your father.”

Have you “We are not illegitimate children,” they declared. “Our only Father is God Himself.”42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on My own, but He sent Me.43Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you are unable to accept My message. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out his desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, refusing to uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, because he is a liar and the father of lies. 45But because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me!

Todays cancel culture would cancel Jesus!

Have you actually read the Old Testament? If so you must have ignored the many recorded atrocities carried out by the Israelites against others......of coarse God told them to do it......in their own minds!

I've heard people state that the only things certain in life are "death" and "taxes" - That's life. My question is, we are required to procreate and to multiply for our preservation, so doesn't this make all parents guilty of what Jesus said? It isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just a truth. Jesus had a way of seeing and speaking an evident truth to a people with a guilty conscience, but then most of us get offended at such things. Make the tree good or make the tree bad - I think that's the gist.

 

[metis]

it's just a truth. Jesus had a way of seeing and speaking an evident truth to a people with a guilty conscience, but then most of us get offended at such things.

And I think we cannot emphasize this enough, so well said, imo.

"Truth" and "Love" are two substitute names for God that Gandhi used, and "Truth" involves seeing things as they objectively are without personal attachments based on emotion or being self-serving.