[geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
- From: "Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:17:39 -0500
JA,
That's right. My personal views of logic and rational thinking won't
change what is accepted on faith. Welcome to God's world.
You have no idea what the Mystical Body of Christ is, because you have
no idea what the Catholic Church is (your reference to it being an
"institution of men" makes this clear). Again, just keep on spouting
off about which you are absolutely clueless. Tell me if you enjoy this
state of intentional ignorance. Is it really bliss, as they say?
Assuming valid Popes, then your hypothetical is a bit like asking would
my faith be shaken if I were told that God exploded and no longer
existed. It can't happen and neither can your hypothetical--assuming in
both cases that we are to believe the Bible.
Regards,
Nick.
_____
From: j a [mailto:ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 4:34 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
Nick,
It is because you did not answer the question till now. It has nothing
to do with what I want or would like you to say. You did however, answer
in a manner that I expected. Nothing can change your mind, no logic, no
rational, not even Jesus himself. On one hand I admire your absolute
faith, if only such faith were directed to God & Jesus instead of an
institution of men.
I'll try one more time to get you to look beneath your veil. It's
hypothetical too.
What if the current Pope were to decree something which clearly went
again a previous Popes' decree. I mean two official pronouncements of
faith which cannot exist together.
I know you don't think it could possibly happen, it's just a what if.
JA
"Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
JA,
I'd respond the same as if "he" appeared and told me 2+2=5. I'd
conclude I could not trust the apparition which I was seeing. Galatians
1:8-10.
My answer was not a non-answer. It just wasn't the answer you
wanted.
Where do you non-Catholics get all of this stuff about Catholics
being incapable of independent thought and needing the Pope before we
answer. Do any of you guys actually read real Catholic teachings or
study actual Catholic history. Have you ever actually read any of the
great writings of the great Catholic Saints (both Popes and non-Pope
Saints)? You can keep saying that stuff, but all it does is demonstrate
your ignorance about what you are spouting off about.
Regards,
Nick.
_____
From: j a [mailto:ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 3:49 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
Nick,
Pasting your non-answer again doesn't really help. I hear your
position loud and clear. In reality, you reject the position of my
hypothetical question. No problem. But why can't you give an opinion
based on the hypothetical? Are you incapable of independant thought? Do
you need an act of the Pope before you answer?
I'll re-phrase in order to get around some of your problems with
the question.
If Jesus appeared in front of you, maybe in your living room, in
the flesh, and had a real back and forth discussion with you in which he
showed you, from the bible, how the catholic church had erred in
different official pronouncements on the faith, what would you think
about that?
I realise you don't think that would or could be possible and
that your speculation in this matter does not reflect your current
faith.
JA
"Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
JA,
Ok I"ll answer it again, by pasting in my earlier
response:
What would it mean if you or anyone showed me
scriptures that plainly disagreed with any catholic position. I'll
assume you are referring to a valid Bible and to an official Catholic
Church position. My response would be that none of the Scriptures are
wrong and that none of the Scriptures disagree with any official
Catholic Church position and that the person making the claim has
misread the passage. I can state this with certainty, because this is
what the Bible (as well as all of Sacred Tradition) shows us that Jesus
assures us.
So, in your hypothetical, if you believe this conflict
was "demonstrated", I'd respond that you were mistaken in believing in
your demonstration.
Regards,
Nick.
_____
From: j a [mailto:ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 1:51 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
Nick,
You may have responded to me and you can call it an
answer if you want. But, I asked you a hypothetical question and you
sidestepped it entirely.
JA
"Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
JA,
I already answered this below. But go ahead and
show me what you believe is a real example and I'll respond further.
Regards,
Nick.
_____
From: j a [mailto:ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 12:28 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick
& Dan
Nick,
Approach my question logically, please. I
understand you think scripture and official catholic positions support
each other and do not contradict. I wanted to know what you would think
if could be shown otherwise.
For example if Official catholic position said
"muskrats are of satan and should be burnt when caught and those who
protect them are cursed" and I showed you a verse (not out of context
and no translation errors) that said "all animals are created by god for
the purposes' of god" and another verse that says "all of the animals
are truly innocent before god". And of course muskrats are mentioned
nowhere in all of the bible.
I give you this rediculass example so that you
will not get lost on any actual discrepency. I want to know what you
would think if it could be demonstrated that an actual official position
of the catholic church was plainly contrary to the bible.
JA
"Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
JA,
Thank you for your follow up. You asked
me a question, so I'll respond to that. What would it mean if you or
anyone showed me scriptures that plainly disagreed with any catholic
position. I'll assume you are referring to a valid Bible and to an
official Catholic Church position. My response would be that none of
the Scriptures are wrong and that none of the Scriptures disagree with
any official Catholic Church position and that the person making the
claim has misread the passage. I can state this with certainty, because
this is what the Bible (as well as all of Sacred Tradition) shows us
that Jesus assures us.
Your other comments miss the point and
mistate what I said. Re-read if you like, but I see no point in
repeating what you already ignore.
Good luck in battling your way out of
your obvious state of confusion. I'm praying for you.
Regards,
Nick.
_____
From: j a [mailto:ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 9:15 AM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of
Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
My responces are in red
Philip has stated the point well
regarding Bible interpretation, so I don't see a reason to add to that .
His position is the same as any atheist or liberal christian. That the
bible is too contradictory. The atheist uses that to say it isn't true.
The Liberal uses it to excuse whatever he already wants to believe.
(pardon me for using the "liberal" word but I needed some descriptor for
what I was saying.) Yes, it is true that someting difficult may need
research like reading other verses or looking up definitions for words
in original languages or perhaps some othe rmethod. But Phillips point
of trying to determine who "they" were is moot. It is an arguement that
does not contradict the point he is trying to contradict. If the verse
does not say who they are than it doesn't say. If some other scripture
elsewhere in the bible describes the same event and says who they are,
than it do es. What is so difficult about that? How does that violate
reading the scriptures as plainly as possibly?
Where do you think I stated I "reject
what scripture says". I didn't. Please read what I have said, not what
you want to suppose. Re-read Allens' quoted scripture - it gives the
basis for reading the bible and what it is usefull for. Your position
clearly rejects the meaning of those verses. If you reject those verses
- what other verses do you reject. And having rejected verses of the
bible, how do you then claim scriptural support for the catholic church
when anyone is now free to reject those scriptures (if they actually
exist) following the same logic. In case you don't know what Logic I
refer to I'll spell it out - If you can reject a part of scripture how
do you defend rejecting some other part of it.
Where will I go "to look to gain
understanding". You said the Bible "seems like a likely answer".
That's fine. Go to the Bible. The Bible sends us to the Church Jesus
established. So, just do what you preach, follow the "plain meaning" and
you'll end up where I am. This is plain false. If you followed the plain
meaning you would either leave the catholic church or you would begin
working from within to change it. There is little support for
catholicism and much that disproves it - all in the bible and all from
easy interpritation. No hoops required.
So, you can go directly to the Church or
you can go to the Bible which directs you to the Church. This is a
"simple instruction" "from the Bible" which you apparently are "too
correct and knowlegable to take". I am in the church - it is not a
building or an institution among men as you seem to think. Christ is the
head and the body of the "church" are all those who follow him.
My response is not "holier than thou".
It is "truer than thou". Not because of me, but because I actually
practice what you only pretend to practice. Again, holier than thou.
Jesus said he is the way the truth and the light. Your position seems to
be that Jesus is the way the truth and the light only if you are a
member of the catholic church in good standing as defined by the popes.
Quite an addition to scripture.
Of course you don't get this JA. One
reason may be that "sin clouds the intellect". That's for you to
examine. Wow, Holier than thou again. We all sin and we all fall short.
Hence, the need for Jesus. I have not declared your beliefs as condeming
you to hell as you have mine. But you clearly do not understand the
points being made - that you have some serious errors surrounding your
beliefs. Plain scriptures means nothing to you. All you seem to care
about are the catholic positions as defined by other men to support
their catholic positions. Don't you care about the scriptural support
for those positions?
Let me ask you just one simple question
of logic. If I or anyone could show you scriptures that plainly
disagreed with any catholic position. What would it mean to you? Would
it mean that you need to re-examine your faith in the catholic church's
positions? Or would it mean that those scriptures are wrong? Or would it
mean that you need a special revelation to understand those verses? Or
would it mean that the bible is just to darn complicated for the
simpleton masses? Or is the bible just to convoluted and full of
translation errors and other men's monkey business?
I look forward to your responce to this
one question.
JA
"Niemann, Nicholas K."
<NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
JA,
Philip has stated the point well
regarding Bible interpretation, so I don't see a reason to add to that .
Where do you think I stated I "reject
what scripture says". I didn't. Please read what I have said, not what
you want to suppose.
Where will I go "to look to gain
understanding". You said the Bible "seems like a likely answer".
That's fine. Go to the Bible. The Bible sends us to the Church Jesus
established. So, just do what you preach, follow the "plain meaning" and
you'll end up where I am.
So, you can go directly to the Church or
you can go to the Bible which directs you to the Church. This is a
"simple instruction" "from the Bible" which you apparently are "too
correct and knowlegable to take".
My response is not "holier than thou".
It is "truer than thou". Not because of me, but because I actually
practice what you only pretend to practice.
Of course you don't get this JA. One
reason may be that "sin clouds the intellect". That's for you to
examine.
Thank you,
Nick.
_____
From: j a [mailto:ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 4:33 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of
Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
I've never read a more foolish responce.
It simply drips with that "holier than thou" attitude I've already
acused you of and is your particular downfall as I see it. You are too
correct and knowlegable to take simple instruction, even from the bible.
The point is quite simple - is scripture
to be read very plainly or do you need special revelation to understand
scripture? If you had bothered to read the verses quoted and actually
thought about them for yourself, you would see that they are the
cornerstones of what Allen is saying to you. His basis for how to read
the bible comes from the bible itself in the quoted scriptures
mentioned.
Under what authority do you question the
plain meaning of those verses? If you reject what scripture says, how do
you keep biblical authority for anything you believe? Weather someone
else has written on the subject is meaningless. What do you say? Is the
bible from God or not? if it plainly says something, should you "go by
that" or is there more to know? If something written is dificult to
understand or seems to contradict something else, where are you going to
look to gain understanding? The bible seems a likely answer. Or are you
going to depend on some special revelation outside of scripture?
By the way, I guess I've decided to quit
worrying about staying on the geocentric topic since that never seems to
be discussed anymore. Perhaps we should rename this "I know the true way
- no, I do - your wrong - no you are" @ freelists.
JA
"Niemann, Nicholas K."
<NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen,
Thank you for the followup, but you've
missed the point. I had asked the following:
"You mention that Scripture defines
itself, correlates its meaning, can be easily understood without reading
into the text and requires nothing more than acceptance of plain
text...etc. My question is, where in Scripture does Scripture give you
these absolutes on how it is to be read. Or have you developed
something else outside of Scripture to be able to make such statements
(and if so, on what authority)."
Of course "ALL Scripture
is...profitable", etc. But where does it say all the stuff you said on
how it is to be read. It doesn't. The point is you are drawing up your
own guidelines (and in the process violating the very 1 Corr provision
you irrelevantly cited as your support). You are the one without
"authority" to do so.
Please read carefully before you go
about preaching your "opinions" as Truth.
If you actually want an answer to the
Catholic Church's authority, then go read it in such Catholic texts as
Denzinger, which I cited earlier, rather than asking me to reproduce via
emails the equivalent of several hundred pages of well established text.
Instead, (to again use your cite) you guys like to go around "puffed up"
with what you've "written".
Regards,
Nick.
_____
From: Allen Daves
[mailto:allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 11:23 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of
Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
This will have little meaning to others.
However, as you accept Paul I would point out the following to you and
argue your objection based on the following scripture. The short answer
to any objection about absolutes in scripture is.........well scripture!
2 timothy 2:16 All Scripture is given
by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness...........
1Chorinthians 1:6. Now these things,
brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your
sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written,
that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.
7. For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you
did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you glory as
if you had not received it?
If you do not apply these principles and
methodolgy even to your own question about absolutes and my point,you
will see that..........
1.If there is no absolute then you have
no case for ANYTHING! We could not argue for or aginst any doctrine,
POPE, INFALIBILITY or even salvation or anything else. There would be no
point to any debate or desscussion on or with scripture about anything.
Thus, your or any objecjection to my position would be meaningless and
moot, because we would just be trading one interpritaion for the other.
2.If there is context or reference in
scripture to other scripture how could it be irrelivant or contrary to
this example and positon. You would then find yourself arguing scripture
not me and if it cannot be understood then how can you object and or
hold any position for or agginst, to include the authority of a Pope or
anyone else...
3.everyone has a God given Choice on in
WHOM to put their faith in....Jesus stated the words I speak unto you
they are life..........I base my authority on this postion on scripture.
What will you base yours on. If not on scripture then the whole
disscussion and any objection you could make is meaningless! You put
your trust in man who tells you somthing... I put mine in the scriptures
that will tell me somthing too...only if I listen and belive in ALL of
them, not selectivly ignore Plain staments Plain corelations plain
terminology...the Jews did not like jesus not becuse he taught contrary
to the law...He just taught contrary to their interpritaions of the
L&P.. and He stated as much. Which is the same reason that what I am
speaking is not belived either.
4. In this particular case one must
accept assumtions and assertions external of scripture to demonstrate
any other postion.. and WHERE in scripture could you or anyone even if
you had that authority get that authority?
5. Finaly what then would be the basis
for your objection to Neville or Carl's position..they are just
interpreting it the way they see it..."Sounds groovy to me".....who am I
or you to say anything against their postions. If the Church at Rome has
THE authority where did they get it scripture.....History??? My Church
history book, the Bible dosn't mention that and if there is no
absolutes from scripture.......how could you begin to argue otherwise.
I will accept these questions as
retorical so that we do not engage in a endless debate as you put it.
However, I am making this point, it applies to everyone else on the
other side of all those other issues as much if not more so. Even
without the Pual Quotes!.......so everyone can feel free to ignore this
or take a shot!
"Niemann, Nicholas K."
<NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen,
Please continue the debate with Dan. My
only suggestion was to read the reference I mentioned. I don't want to
get into an endless slinging of Bible verses, especially when it's been
so well covered elsewhere. I've read the non-Catholic position posited
by non-Catholics. Have you read the Catholic position posited by
Catholics. If not, I suggest you balance your reading before reaching a
conclusion, if you truly are interested in the Truth.
I will comment though on your assumption
about Scripture. You mention that Scripture defines itself, correlates
its meaning, can be easily understood without reading into the text and
requires nothing more than acceptance of plain text...etc.
My question is, where in Scripture does
Scripture give you these absolutes on how it is to be read. Or have you
developed something else outside of Scripture to be able to make such
statements (and if so, on what authority).
Also, the fact that you need to go to
such great lengths to prove your rock point seems to be
self-contradictory as to the validity of your methodology.
Regards,
Nick.
_____
From: Allen Daves
[mailto:allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 5:39 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of
Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
Nick, I accept your response to mine and
Dan's invitation for this discussion. However, I would like to use this
opportunity to address the REAL issue "How and how not to address/use
scripture".......I am not trying to draw you out here but Dan already
accepts the Premises that Peter was not the rock then this example will
be the most strait forward for me to make to him.
Dan, Please hear me out.....Your premise
that Peter was not the rock is correct! ..However, the method of
argument in your posting for reaching that conclusion is based on
similar methodology that is used to maintain that Peter was the
rock.....Namely it is a philosophical argument or
methodology(Interpretative of the scriptures that you use to make the
argument)....This is the same methodology used in all the previous
debates......Scripture defines itself! It will correlates its meaning
with itself! It can be easily understood without reading into the text
or its meaning, it requires nothing more than acceptance of plain text
external of anyone's interpretation or Ideas or Reasoning! ..Let me
demonstrate this with the "Peter and the Rock" issue. First note the
context of OT & NT STATMENTS...in all cases it is SALVATION,ROCK, STONE,
AND THE WORK OF GOD.
Deuteronomy32: 3. For I proclaim the
name of the Lord: ascribe greatness to our God. 4. He is the Rock, His
work is perfect; for all His ways are justice, a God of truth and
without injustice; righteous and upright is He............ 15. "But
Jeshurun grew fat and kicked; you grew fat, you grew thick, you are
covered with fat; then he forsook God who made him, and scornfully
esteemed the Rock of his salvation.......... 18. Of the Rock who begot
you, you are unmindful, and have forgotten the God who fathered
you.........
2Samuel 22: 47. "The Lord lives! Blessed
be my Rock! Let God be exalted, the Rock of my salvation!
2 Samuel 23:3. The God of Israel said,
the Rock of Israel spoke to me: `He who rules over men must be just,
Psalms 62:7. In God is my salvation and
my glory; The rock of my strength, And my refuge, is in God.
Psalms 89:26. He shall cry to Me, `You
are my Father, My God, and the rock of my salvation.'
Psalms 94:22. But the Lord has been my
defense, And my God the rock of my refuge.
Psalms 95: 1. Oh come, let us sing to
the Lord! Let us shout joyfully to the Rock of our salvation.
Acts 12:12. "Nor is there salvation in
any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by
which we must be saved.''
Isaiah 17:10. Because you have forgotten
the God of your salvation, and have not been mindful of the Rock of your
stronghold, therefore you will plant pleasant plants and set out foreign
seedlings;
Isaiah 8:14. He will be as a sanctuary,
but a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to both the houses of
Israel, as a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 15. And
many among them shall stumble; they shall fall and be broken, be snared
and taken.''
Palms 118:21. I will praise You, For You
have answered me, And have become my salvation. 22. The stone which the
builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. 23.This was the
Lord's doing; It is marvelous in our eyes.
Mathew 21:42. Jesus said to them, "Did
you never read in the Scriptures: `The stone which the builders rejected
has become the chief cornerstone. This was the Lord's doing, and it is
marvelous in our eyes'? 43. "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God
will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.
Matthew 7:21. ..........24. "Therefore
whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to
a wise man who built his house on the rock: .... 28. And so it was, when
Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His
teaching,
1Peter 2:4. Coming to Him as to a living
stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5. you
also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through
Jesus Christ. 6. Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,
"Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who
believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.'' 7. Therefore, to you
who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, "The
stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone,'' 8.
and "A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.'' They stumble, being
disobedient to the w ord, to which they also were appointed. 9. But you
are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own
special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you
out of darkness into His marvelous light;
Acts 4:8. Then Peter, filled with the
Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers of the people and elders of Israel:
9. "If we this day are judged for a good deed done to the helpless man,
by what means he has been made well, 10. "let it be known to you all,
and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of
Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this
man stands here before you whole. 11. "THIS IS THE STONE which was
rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.' 12.
"Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under
heaven given among men by which we must be saved.''
1 Corinthians 10:4. and all drank the
same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that
followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
The correlation's between all these
verse is SALVATION and ROCK & STONE.
......... People who think Jesus is
calling Peter the rock miss the whole context of all of
scripture........The name Peter means piece of stone but the whole
context of scripture is the Rock that God is supplying Jesus remarks are
THOU (Peter)and THIS Stone or Rock(JESUS).. this is why Jesus makes
these remarks with Peter.
Mathew 16:18. "And I also say to you
that YOU are Peter, and on THIS rock I will build My church, and the
gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19. "And I will give you
the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will
be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in
heaven.''
This argument is not philosophical or
interpritive. I show from the OT and NT Who is THE rock and Stone are.
The context of all of these discussions is Salvation which comes from
the Rock or stone ...spoken of by the L&P as God/Jesus. Peter is given
the keys to the Kingdom that is built on THE ROCK that is GOD and JESUS
(in whom is the ONLY salvation). Again scripture provides context and
correlation's with itself that need no interpretation just acceptance of
those correlation's, plain text and context. In fact in order to assert
that Peter is the rock one must ignore all the correlation's, context
and plain blunt scripture... This is why we are told not to think beyond
what is written!
Dan <danchap9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Was Peter the Rock???
THE TRUE CHURCH.
Mathew chapter 16 verses 13 to 18:
"When Jesus came into the coasts of
Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that
I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the
Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He
saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and
said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus
answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh
and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in
heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this
rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it."
Notice first of all Jesus asks his
disciples whom do men say that I the Son of man am? Because of various
prophecies in the Old Testament they came to the conclusion that Jesus
was the fulfilment of one of these. In verse 15 he makes it personal to
his disciples and you can make it personal to yourselves right now. But
whom say ye that I am? He has already told them who he is by saying I Am
which is the name that God gave to Moses in reply to who shall I say
sent me when Moses returned from Mount Sinai.
Exodus 3:13 to15:
"And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I
come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of
your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is
his name? What shall I say unto them And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT
I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM
hath sent me unto you And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou
say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God
of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto
you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all
generations."
So this was God in the flesh standing
before them. Simon Peter in verse 16 Simon in Hebrew means he who
harkens or listens. And Peter means rock as in a solid stone. But later
on in the verse Jesus addresses Simon Peter as Simon Barjona. Very
interesting as we know names all have hidden meanings in Hebrew. Here
Simon means he who harkens or listens and Barjona means son of Jona.
Jona means dove. The dove is symbolic of the Holy Spirit. So Jesus is
saying here blessed are you who listen to the Holy Spirit, for flesh and
blood has not revealed it to you but my father in heaven. Now flesh and
blood or man has not revealed it to you means indoctrination of men you
s ee man can teach this day and night in the flesh and get nowhere but
when God himself through the Holy Spirit speaks directly into the
innermost being of a person that's Revelation.
John 16verse 13:
" Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth,
is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of
himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will
shew you things to come."
That's what we all need because without
that the bible is absolutely meaningless to the carnal mind. Verse 18 is
the key to the true foundation that the Holy Spirit would like to lay in
your inner most being right now if you have the ears to hear. The rock
is the revelation that not man but my father in heaven has shown you.
Peter means a stone or solid rock. But this is not speaking of a solid
foundation. Anything built in this physical realm is only temporal. This
is speaking of a spiritual foundation. The Lord Jesus Christ.
I Corinthians chapter 3 verses 10 to
13:
"According to the grace of God which is
given unto me, as a wise master builder, I have laid the foundation, and
another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth
thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which
is Jesus Christ."
You cannot build a foundation on faith
or prosperity or revival or healing etc. Who heals who prospers who
revives who gives faith?
Hebrews chapter 12 verse 2:
"Looking unto Jesus the author and
finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured
the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the
throne of God."
And on that revelation I will build my
church. The word church means to "call out or to call forth." It is not
a building made with hands. It's a people called out and set apart by
God. Now the doctrines of men will take this solid rock and put a solid
building made with the hands of man on it. The building is not the
church but the building is where the church meets. Jesus didn't talk
about it as a place to go to, but a way of living in relationship to him
and to other followers of his. Asking us where we go to church is like
asking us where we go to be us. How do we answer that? We are us and
where we go there we are. 'Church' is that kind of word. It doesn't
identify a location or an institution or a denomination. It describes a
people and how they relate to each other.
Luke chapter 17 verse 20 and 21:
"And when he was demanded of the
Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and
said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they
say, Lo here! Or, lo there! For, behold, the kingdom of God is within
you."
If we lose sight of that, our
understanding of the true church a called out people will be distorted.
So with this simple understanding lets take a closer look at verse 18.
Blessed are you who listens to the spirit of God for flesh and blood has
not revealed this to you but my father in heaven and on that revelation
I will call out my people. And the gates of hell will not come against
it (them).
1 Corinthians chapter 3 verse 10 to 11:
"According to the grace of God which is
given unto me, as a Wise master builder, I have laid the foundation,
and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he
buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is
laid, which is Jesus Christ."
Jesus Christ is the spiritual
foundation. Before we build a house in the natural we have to make sure
that the foundation is deep and strong enough to support it. So it is in
the spiritual.
Galatians chapter 3 verse 28:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there
is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are
all one in Christ Jesus."
Now this is a very interesting verse. If
you are a Jew reading this you have to leave your Jewish religion and
move into Christ. If you are a gentile reading this you have to leave
your Gentile religion and move into Christ. Think about how many Gentile
religions there are and how many false Christ's there are. Not easy if
you are deceived by one of them. If you think that was a bit harsh
what about "neither male nor female." Surely that counts us all out?
Consider this, the bible talks about us being Sons of God and new
creatures.& amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; lt; /P>
2 Corinthians chapter 5 verse 17:
"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he
is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are
become new."
So the new creature in Christ is not a
Jew or a gentile. They are neither male nor female but we are all one in
Christ.
The bible also says that we
are God's body on the earth.
There is a counterfeit church out there
and in the book of Revelation she is called a prostitute or Harlot.
Revelation chapter 17 verses 3 to 6:
"So he carried me away in the spirit
into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured
beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with
gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand
full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her
forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF
HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with
the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and
when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration."
The Beast is the coming One World
Government and the Woman is the counterfeit church. Think about it a
prostitute sleeps around committing adultery and takes all your money
then leaves you for dead. A true bride keeps herself pure and clean for
her husband.
2 Corinthians chapter 6 verses 17 to 17:
"Wherefore come out from among them, and
be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I
will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons
and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."
Dan.
"Niemann, Nicholas K."
<NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen,
I've seen what good (or lack thereof)
the Bible verse slinging does on this forum. If you want a Biblical
basis for Peter as the rock, read Denzinger. I'm not going to write a
book for you when it's already been done. Denzinger is a compilation
that has already been done. Read it, rather than just responding that
"there is none".
Regards,
Nick.
_____
From: Allen Daves
[mailto:allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 4:22 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of
Tarsus.. Nick
I have the history and Scripture.....My
point was is that there is none........ The whole basses for such is on
the premise on peter being the rock that the church was built on.
_____
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it
your home page
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=34442/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
This message and any attachments are
confidential, may contain privileged information, and are intended
solely for the recipient named above. If you are not the intended
recipient, or a person responsible for delivery to the named recipient,
you are notified that any review, distribution, dissemination or copying
is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, you should
notify the sender by return email and delete the message from your
computer system.
This message and any attachments are
confidential, may contain privileged information, and are intended
solely for the recipient named above. If you are not the intended
recipient, or a person responsible for delivery to the named recipient,
you are notified that any review, distribution, dissemination or copying
is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, you should
notify the sender by return email and delete the message from your
computer system.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best
spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
This message and any attachments are
confidential, may contain privileged information, and are intended
solely for the recipient named above. If you are not the intended
recipient, or a person responsible for delivery to the named recipient,
you are notified that any review, distribution, dissemination or copying
is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, you should
notify the sender by return email and delete the message from your
computer system.
_____
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it
your home page
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=34442/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs> This
message and any attachments are confidential, may contain privileged
information, and are intended solely for the recipient named above. If
you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivery
to the named recipient, you are notified that any review, distribution,
dissemination or copying is prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, you should notify the sender by return email and
delete the message from your computer system.
_____
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home
page <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=34442/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs> This
message and any attachments are confidential, may contain privileged
information, and are intended solely for the recipient named above. If
you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivery
to the named recipient, you are notified that any review, distribution,
dissemination or copying is prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, you should notify the sender by return email and
delete the message from your computer system.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection
around
http://mail.yahoo.com
This message and any attachments are confidential, may
contain privileged information, and are intended solely for the
recipient named above. If you are not the intended recipient, or a
person responsible for delivery to the named recipient, you are notified
that any review, distribution, dissemination or copying is prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, you should notify the sender
by return email and delete the message from your computer system.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
This message and any attachments are confidential, may contain
privileged information, and are intended solely for the recipient named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible
for delivery to the named recipient, you are notified that any review,
distribution, dissemination or copying is prohibited. If you have
received this message in error, you should notify the sender by return
email and delete the message from your computer system.
_____
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=34442/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
This message and any attachments are confidential, may contain privileged
information, and are intended solely for the recipient named above. If you are
not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivery to the named
recipient, you are notified that any review, distribution, dissemination or
copying is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, you should
notify the sender by return email and delete the message from your computer
system.
Other related posts:
