• 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!

"Upon this rock", which rock?

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
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.



.

The rock was the revelation that Jesus is the Christ. Peter had received this - just like many others had.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
So Paul's Gospel, Christianity is really a version of Peters Gospel that was a version of Jesus' Gospel, The Kingdom of Heaven.
Which was a version of Moses' Gospel, and none of them had any evidence to prove the truth of what they were exclaiming. :)
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
`Thou [art] my Father, My God, and the rock of my salvation.'


Deuteronomy 32:15
And Jeshurun waxeth fat, and doth kick: Thou hast been fat -- thou hast been thick, Thou hast been covered. And he leaveth God who made him, And dishonoureth the Rock of his salvation.


Deuteronomy 32:18
The Rock that begat thee thou forgettest, And neglectest God who formeth thee.


2 Samuel 22:32
For who is God save Jehovah? And who a Rock save our God?


2 Samuel 22:47
Jehovah liveth, and blessed [is] my Rock, And exalted is my God -- The Rock of my salvation.


Psalm 42:9
I say to God my rock, `Why hast Thou forgotten me? Why go I mourning in the oppression of an enemy?

Psalm 62:2
Only -- He [is] my rock, and my salvation, My tower, I am not much moved.


Psalm 78:35
And they remember that God [is] their rock, And God Most High their redeemer.


Psalm 89:26
He proclaimeth me: `Thou [art] my Father, My God, and the rock of my salvation.'


Psalm 92:15
To declare that upright [is] Jehovah my rock, And there is no perverseness in Him!


Isaiah 26:4
Trust ye in Jehovah for ever, For in Jah Jehovah [is] a rock of ages,


Matthew 7:24
`Therefore, every one who doth hear of me these words, and doth do them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house upon the rock;

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. 18And 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. 19I 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 term "rock" relative to the Old Testament scriptures was God the Father as the "rock" not humans. Jesus is saying here that the rock or God the Father revealed his identity to the apostles and he would build his kingdom on this foundation rock. After Jesus left the "rock" or God the Father is what bears witness to the identity of his Son in the hearts of spirit born believers.
Humans are humans.

A human two of as first human parents adults consciousness were not theists humans for science.

Is the correct terms to think first as a human reasoning of natural history.

When you want to use quotes such as a father. Use it correctly.

The bible doesn't.

A theist a man is a man as he owns a penis.

Warned in human psychology that he expresses fake terms via his human sexuality. As status ownership his ego. As it's part of his bad behaviour.

False claim I own myself.

Said gods earth rock erection like a father was a mountain O opened volcano erection out of and up of O gods body.. From hence came first spirits of the heavens.

Isn't his human father.

But as a man theoried God history for man's science thesis he reminded himself who and what terms he gave God. Like a father irrationally.

To remind him God is just the rock...not really his man baby son human father.

Which everyone seems to irrationally not think about as it's natural truth first.

Summation. A humans choice to build the church and not rebuild a science temple. As his evil repeated man's choice was pyramid temple rebuilding.

As his human father's recorded memories not his own biology as a man adult told him his human truth.

Via human life gaining early age death sacrificed psychic warnings from medium in heavens. Church doesn't give you Hades gases falling out burning.

A teaching. Testimony science says correlated. Natural law first. Broken law equated all answers for the testimony by man's choices. Founded human law.

Build a church for healing using sound therapy resonance instead of temple science life will be saved instead.

By rock not burning.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Why do you think your interpretation is more valid than the 2000 year old church?
Because Jesus gave a new commandment. To love. Proverbs 10:12. Love is perfect. The fruit of the spirit is love. I AM the church. My body is the temple of the indwelling spirit. I recognize christ in all. I don't promote a cult of personality. Nor do I practice anthropolatry..

And unlike your church, I don't have a material investment or salary tied to it. You can't profit from what you can't control
 
Last edited:

KW

Well-Known Member
Because Jesus gave a new commandment. To love. Proverbs 10:12. Love is perfect. The fruit of the spirit is love. I AM the church. My body is the temple of the indwelling spirit. I recognize christ in all. I don't promote a cult of personality. Nor do I practice anthropolatry..

And unlike your church, I don't have a material investment or salary tied to it. You can't profit from what you can't control

Jesus told you to listen to the church.

Do you?
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
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.

.
" before being killed"

It is Pauline-Hellenist propaganda, Jesus never died a cursed death on the Cross. Jesus- a Jewish Messiah was not to die a cursed death on the Cross. Right?

Regards
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
" before being killed"

It is Pauline-Hellenist propaganda, Jesus never died a cursed death on the Cross. Jesus- a Jewish Messiah was not to die a cursed death on the Cross. Right?

Regards
Jesus wasn't a Jewish Messiah, he left without fulfilling the false expectations of a Jewish Messiah. The Jewish Messiah is still missing.

If magic and curses were real then it seems it was Israel that was cursed in the age of killing Jesus. The Son of God returned from death and has been glorified on high.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Jesus told you to listen to the church.

Do you?


revelation 3:22

none of the churches in revelation were catholic. none of the churches in the new testament were catholic.

are you listening?
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
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.



.
I'm not sure what point you are talking about since first it was about the rock and then about Paul.

The rock (or stone) what the stone that the builders rejection that is "The Christ, the son of the living God"... and upon this rock, the Gates of Hell will not prevail (as shown in his resurrection)

I don't see any difference between the Gospel as presented by Peter and Paul. And neither did the rest of those who were in Jerusalem.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what point you are talking about since first it was about the rock and then about Paul.

The rock (or stone) what the stone that the builders rejection that is "The Christ, the son of the living God"... and upon this rock, the Gates of Hell will not prevail (as shown in his resurrection)

I don't see any difference between the Gospel as presented by Peter and Paul. And neither did the rest of those who were in Jerusalem.
On the day of Pentecost the Gospel began to change. In the original Gospel that Jesus preached for 3+ years salvation was by faith in the Father, forgiveness was by repenting and receiving it. A personal relationship with God as a child of God. On Pentecost a new focus on the death and resurrection of Jesus Began. Paul expanded it in his religion about Jesus; Christ and him crucified and the theoretical atonement doctrine which Jesus never taught.
 

KW

Well-Known Member
revelation 3:22

none of the churches in revelation were catholic. none of the churches in the new testament were catholic.

are you listening?

Of course they were. They were all part of the church Jesus started and led by the leaders he chose. Read Acts 15. When they had a doctrinal dispute in Antioch they consulted the leaders. They didn’t make up their own answer.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Of course they were. They were all part of the church Jesus started and led by the leaders he chose. Read Acts 15. When they had a doctrinal dispute in Antioch they consulted the leaders. They didn’t make up their own answer.
The church is a people, a person. It isn't a place, or a time. Again you are ignoring God's Spirit which is within man.

1 Corinthians 3:16
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
On the day of Pentecost the Gospel began to change. In the original Gospel that Jesus preached for 3+ years salvation was by faith in the Father, forgiveness was by repenting and receiving it. A personal relationship with God as a child of God. On Pentecost a new focus on the death and resurrection of Jesus Began. Paul expanded it in his religion about Jesus; Christ and him crucified and the theoretical atonement doctrine which Jesus never taught.
I disagree... Jesus taught all of it and it was mentioned in the TaNaKh.

What specific area would you like to address?
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
I disagree... Jesus taught all of it and it was mentioned in the TaNaKh.

What specific area would you like to address?
I disagree, Jesus was trying to get his followers to begin again, become teachable like little children.

We weren't supposed to reject Jesus and kill him. His conceptually simple Gospel about the Father was replaced by a convoluted Pagan doctrine.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I disagree, Jesus was trying to get his followers to begin again, become teachable like little children.

We weren't supposed to reject Jesus and kill him. His conceptually simple Gospel about the Father was replaced by a convoluted Pagan doctrine.

Yet... that isn't what Jesus said:
Matthew 16:21–23
English Standard Version

From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that qhe must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. 5 This shall never happen to you.” “Get behind me, Satan! You are uahindrance6 to me. For you vare not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
Yet... that isn't what Jesus said:
Matthew 16:21–23
English Standard Version

From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that qhe must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. 5 This shall never happen to you.” “Get behind me, Satan! You are uahindrance6 to me. For you vare not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”
Jesus was foretelling the rejection of his Gospel, persecution and subsequent murder. Jesus and his Father had already worked out a contingency since the Jews were rejecting their calling. Jesus was dressing down Peter for suggesting that he take a different course of action then turning the other cheek on the cross. Christians converted the rejection into the atonement doctrine, the false claim that it was Gods will for his Son to be rejected and die as a sin debt payment so God could finally forgive people.
 
Last edited:

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
Jesus said to listen to the Church.

He wanted to avoid the mess with have in protestantism with hundreds of different denominations teaching contradictory messages. Gay priests, abortion, sex outside of marriage, this is all taught as moral in some protestant churches led by those who decide what's right with their inner conscience.

That's gnosticism, not Christianity. We follow those sent by Christ and granted his authority to teach.
But we only have the people saying Jesus endorsed them.
 

KW

Well-Known Member
The church is a people, a person. It isn't a place, or a time. Again you are ignoring God's Spirit which is within man.

1 Corinthians 3:16

Yes, the body of Christ is the Church.

Jesus wants you to listen to the Church but you choose instead to follow yourself. You are your own pope!
 

KW

Well-Known Member
But we only have the people saying Jesus endorsed them.


Jesus chose leaders and gave them the authority to make rules. He said, as the Father sent me I am sending you. He chose apostles to carry on the gospel and so did they.

Here's St. Clement, the fourth pope, writing to the Corinthians in about 80 AD to settle a dispute in their Church:

Pope Clement I
“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Jesus was foretelling the rejection of his Gospel, persecution and subsequent murder. Jesus and his Father had already worked out a contingency since the Jews were rejecting their calling. Jesus was dressing down Peter for suggesting that he take a different course of action then turning the other cheek on the cross. Christians converted the rejection into the atonement doctrine, the false claim that it was Gods will for his Son to be rejected and die as a sin debt payment so God could finally forgive people.

No... he said he was going to die.

Your personal viewpoints that aren't scripturally supported is just your personal viewpoint.

Matt "As they were gathering in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and he will be raised on the third day.” And they were greatly distressed."

Luke 9:22-27 ESV
Saying, “The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.”

John 20:9 ESV
For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead.


I stand with what was written
 
  • Like
Reactions: KW
Top