What of Peter "The Stone"? (Prophetic words of Jesus?)

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Personally I have no real issues with peters books, aside from the fact that theres no proof he actually wrote them...

Though there was a question posed by Jesus that's been going through my mind in the past few months...Perhaps it was a prophecy about future events which could only be seen by the son of God... but first a brief summery of Peter and a few of the obvious issues I do have.

Peter was with Jesus in his time of need... He asked peter to stay with him whilst he prayed to be a witness to his sorrow... Yet Peter could not stay awake, and when Jesus returned peter was fast asleep... This happened three times

...

And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?

...

Moving on...

Jesus specifically called Peter Satan after he rebuked Jesus for telling his followers that he was to die... This not only shows lack of belief in the son of God, but that he dared question who he called master..

...

31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

32 And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.

33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

...

And a while later... we find peter denying Jesus directly after telling him "he would never deny him, and he would die for him"

...

Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

35 Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.

...

This passage shows Peter to be not only a coward, but a liar... after making this statement he denied Jesus exactly how he said he would...

Now many will say that he was reinstated as the head of the church after Jesus was resurrected...

While this might be true, I also find it very possible that Paul and Peter might have had an agenda... that being to gain their own following as Jesus had...

There is also a theory put forth by another member that Paul and Peter were the same person, which is a very interesting idea... also quite possible.

This however is not the point of this thread....

Knowing all of this about peter... I will also point out a curious passage from a gnostic text

The Gospel of Mary

Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?

6) Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.

7) Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.

8) But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her?

...

While this text is not accepted by main stream Christians, perhaps it might show the character of Peter...

With all of this, and many other passages that do not show Peter in a great light...

I will return to the beginning... to the words of Jesus which might be a hidden prophecy about Peter...

Jesus said of Peter...

Matthew 16:18
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.

Unfortunately as we've seen... Peter is not a Rock... for a rock is unmoveable....

Peter is but a stone...but Jesus is the bread of life

John 6:48
I am that bread of life.

Keep that in mind when someone quotes peter... For as Jesus said...

Matthew 7
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

Thanks for reading my friends


edit on 9-3-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Nifty read.

Peter the 'Rock' -- or Petra, the Sacred Rock of Mithraism. You be the 'judge'
Anything the Roman empire has touched is rotten to the core.
If you want an account of Jesus, look for Yeshua ben Pandira who is named in the Talmud- he was hanged as a sorcerer - and even then it's likely that he was just part of a lineage of Adepts which meddled in the affairs of humans- a mystery school initiate. Otherwise you are left with the apotheosis of Caesar.

Just sayin.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemonkeydishwasher
 


Its a little ironic this idea popped into my head just a little while before the pope retired, and theres a bunch of threads relating to "Peter the roman" being the next pope?

edit on 9-3-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Yeah, Peter was definitely a liar, which calls into question why Jesus would choose a liar to head his church. My personal opinion is that the church intentionally removed any mention of a Mother figure in Jesus' teachings then assumed that role for themselves by calling themselves the "Bride of Christ".

Another one of my opinions is that Earth is the missing Mother figure from the NT. What is consciousness "married" with? The physical world, because you can't have one without the other. Without the physical world, consciousness would have nothing to perceive/reside in and without consciousness there would be nothing to perceive the world. One is useless without the other.

Since Peter was called Cephas, Cephas means rock, and Earth is made of rock/stone, I believe Peter and the church hijacked Mother Earth's identity.

The foundation is not Peter, it is the Earth and our physical existence. Without our bodies (foundation), the spirit (Christ/consciousness) would have nowhere to reside, hence the physical world being the foundation of the "church", a.k.a. universal consciousness.

That's my two cents at least.


Also, nice catch on the whole bread/stone thing. Something else to get minds inquiring... hopefully.

S&F
edit on 9-3-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


I think "The last shall be first and the first shall be last" comes into play here.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by purplemonkeydishwasher
 


Its a little ironic this idea popped into my head just a little while before the pope retired, and theres a bunch of threads relating to "Peter the roman" being the next pope?

edit on 9-3-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)


Ha, yea I was thinking the same thing dude- whatever is about to unfold has been in the works for quite some time-

though! it should be noted here that the best laid plans of mice and men so often go awry.

hopefully it is indeed 'men' that we are dealing with. lol

anyhoo.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


What I am about to say may seem very controversial to those raised catholic. Sorry.

Jesus did not appoint Peter to be the head of the Church. When Jesus asked his discipleship what do people say about him, each one had an opinion and Peter said , in regular modern day English

"You are the Christ. The savior. The one that was prophesied about. You are him. The Messiah"

Jesus answered THAT specific comment that Peter made and and when he told Peter he was the rock, he was talking about that particular comment that Peter made. That belief. That belief that he is the Messiah. The Christ.

The Church (Catholic Church) are the ones who made a man the Father of the Church as a stand in for Christ. Even when Jesus said to call no man your father because your father is in heaven. Like I said, Catholics will not want to hear that and even some other Christians will not want to read that. But I think the fact that we put more emphasis on Peter than we do on The Christ Jesus , is a problem. I also think that when we pray to Popes and seek forgiveness from Popes and Fathers and such, we are ignoring what Jesus taught. He said HE was the way the truth and the life and no man can come to the Father (Heavenly Father) but through him. Not through PETER and not through any other man.

Sorry if I offend.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by skepticconwatcher
 


Interesting theory you have, but if Jesus was talking about the comment he made then why did he say that he would give Peter the keys to heaven right after that?

One thing I find interesting about that passage is that Jesus says Hades will not overcome the church gates, then a few verses later he calls Peter Satan. Pretty weird if you ask me.



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


If the message of Jesus was meant for the world...

Why does his church need gates to begin with?

Didn't he say the "gates of hell" not the gates of the church?

edit on 9-3-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Oops, you're right he did say gates of hell, my bad.


Either way though, it's strange how that scenario played out in the end.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Something else that adds to your OP:


1 Peter 2
4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house[a] to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.


So basically Peter is calling Jesus a stone. Like you pointed out, Jesus asked why offer a stone when your son asks for bread? Interesting....



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 

It was Peter's testimony (from above) which was and is the stone. Nothing more. On that rock is built the body of the Christ and the Bride of the Spirit.

No "authority" no key jingling - but the testimony from the Spirit, that Jesus was sent by and therefore is the begotten son of (in spirit and truth) the living God who is spirit and truth itself or the objective reality.

It's not about power, not about a man, but his testimony his proclamation. That's the rock.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


I have recently posted on this topic myself in a thread I titled Petrine Doctrine of Papacy...Authority as God’s self appointed church exposed

It is a reasonably thorough covering of the topic.

I will answer a couple of issues you raised here that I feel are better explained in that thread.


Now many will say that he was reinstated as the head of the church after Jesus was resurrected...

While this might be true, I also find it very possible that Paul and Peter might have had an agenda... that being to gain their own following as Jesus had


When Jesus left Earth did Peter become the head of the church?
The clearest example of a major meeting of the church elders coming together to discuss issues and make clear judgements on where the church would head on its foundation of beliefs occurred at the Council of Jerusalem outlined in Acts 15, which dated to around the year 50 A.D.

In Acts 15:13 we see that James is the one speaking in giving the final declaration on the issues discussed where in verse 19 and 20 James says, “therefore, in my judgment, we should not cause difficulties for those among the Gentiles who turn to God, but instead we should write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from eating anything that has been strangled, and from blood.”

Those who, as popes, have claimed to be Peter’s successors, have no Scriptural foundation for their pretensions. Nothing in the life of Peter gives sanction to the claim that he was elevated above his brethren as the vicegerent of the Most High. If those who are declared to be the successors of Peter had followed his example, they would always have been content to remain on an equality with their brethren. In this instance James seems to have been chosen as the one to announce the decision arrived at by the council. It was his sentence that the ceremonial law, and especially the ordinance of circumcision, should not be urged upon the Gentiles, or even recommended to them.


There is also a theory put forth by another member that Paul and Peter were the same person, which is a very interesting idea... also quite possible.

I don't know what evidence they presented for this but with any kind of reading around this suggests that it is baseless.

Peter travels around mostly to other neighboring Jews, Paul goes out to the Gentiles. Paul denounces the hypocrisy of Peter in one of his letters as well. This doesn't make sense if they are the same person.


When Peter, at a later date, visited Antioch, he won the confidence of many by his prudent conduct toward the Gentile converts. For a time he acted in accordance with the light given from heaven. He so far overcame his natural prejudice as to sit at table with the Gentile converts. But when certain Jews who were zealous for the ceremonial law, came from Jerusalem, Peter injudiciously changed his deportment toward the converts from paganism. A number of the Jews “dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.” This revelation of weakness on the part of those who had been respected and loved as leaders, left a most painful impression on the minds of the Gentile believers. The church was threatened with division. But Paul, who saw the subverting influence of the wrong done to the church through the double part acted by Peter, openly rebuked him for thus disguising his true sentiments. In the presence of the church, Paul inquired of Peter, “If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” Galatians 2:13, 14.

Peter saw the error into which he had fallen, and immediately set about repairing the evil that had been wrought, so far as was in his power. God, who knows the end from the beginning, permitted Peter to reveal this weakness of character in order that the tried apostle might see that there was nothing in himself whereof he might boast. Even the best of men, if left to themselves, will err in judgment. God also saw that in time to come some would be so deluded as to claim for Peter and his pretended successors the exalted prerogatives that belong to God alone. And this record of the apostle’s weakness was to remain as a proof of his fallibility and of the fact that he stood in no way above the level of the other apostles.

White, Ellen G. (2010-12-05). The Acts of the Apostles (Conflict of the Ages) (Kindle Locations 2317-2331). Ellen G. White Estate, Inc.. Kindle Edition.


You might want to check out the thread I did on this topic a bit over a week ago as it raises many more points and in greater detail than what is presented here. Food for thought.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Just out of curiosity, what do you think the significance is between three disciples being with Jesus in the garden, Peter falling asleep three times and Peter denying God three times?

How does the number three in this scenario correlate with Jesus being dead for three days, Jonah being in the belly of the whale for three days, a third temple possibly being raised, etc.?

Any thoughts?

ETA: Upon more research, these verses in Luke 22 stuck out for me. Luke 22:31-32. While researching these verses it led me to John 21 where once again we see significance in the number three. It says that the THIRD time that Jesus visited his disciples after his resurrection, he asked Simon Peter THREE times, "lovest thou me"?

The correlation between Jonas (Jonah) and his son, Simon Peter...

www.goodnewsinc.net...

edit on 10-3-2013 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 


Probably pagan symbolism, three is a pretty important in paganism.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


I just added a link to my previous post that you might find interesting.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Maybe you're right. Maybe three represents the gates of hell and that's why the Bible tells us that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Jesus' church. We saw Jonah survive after three days, Jesus resurrected after three days, now we just have to figure out how the church fits in with this same "three day" theme.

Matthew 16:18

18 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.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 


But the gates of hell did prevail. Take a look at Matthew 16:23. Jesus calls Peter Satan right after declaring him the rock of the church. It didn't take very long for hell to prevail, only five verses in fact.
edit on 10-3-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


But that didn't keep Jesus from resurrecting to prevail against it.

ETA: If Satan had prevailed, Jesus would never have died in order to fulfill the scripture to begin with.

edit on 10-3-2013 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 


That's actually exactly when he prevailed, when he created the resurrection story. Peter was called Satan, denied Jesus, then went on to teach about Jesus' resurrection. The resurrection and faith in it is part of Satan's deception.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join