Author Topic: God's tumbleweed church.  (Read 608 times)

Description: Who wants to be born along on the wind of the Spirit?

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Copernicus B

Re: God's tumbleweed church.
« Reply #8 on: January 03, 2016, 10:02:24 PM »

Welcome to the Biblical and Theology Section of 1Faith

[Raise a Debate] @ 1faith

Your post will be answered shortly

Raise a Debate - by posting bait !
Jesus most certainly did build the church on himself as the Rock, and himself alone.
If a church is built on anything other than Jesus himself, then it is not God's church.
Lack of that understanding is one of the reasons why so many falsehoods proliferate in the church.That is precisely what the Greek original says and means.Its not splitting hairs CB. Its the difference between light and darkness, Christ and antichrist.
Peter's so called testimony was never the foundation of the church. Its more likely just a Protestant tradition created to counter the false Catholic teaching that Peter is the foundation and head of the church.
Unfortunately, like all traditions, such falsehoods hide the truth that Jesus alone is the Rock upon which the true church is builtNo, he was called Peter, or Simon Peter from the beginning to the end of the gospels.Lets look at these scriptures to see what they actually say.
Matt16v15He said unto them, But whom say you that I am?

16And Simon Peter answered, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed are you, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but my Father who is in heaven.

18And I say also unto you, That you are Peter, (Petros, Greek=loose pebble) and upon this Rock (Petra, Greek=huge mountain) I will build my church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.


As you can see, there is a subtle change in the words that Jesus used. He describes Peter as Petros, a mere pebble, but himself as Petra, a solid mountain. Additionally nowhere in sight do we see any mention that the rock could be Peter's testimony.

The only possible interpretation is that Jesus alone is the foundation of the church. " You're just a pebble Peter, but I am building my church on this mountain, me." Pointing at himself!

In case that crystal clear verse alone is not enough to convince the diehards, we can now also look throughout the whole of written scripture and we will never see man described as "the rock", nor a man's testimony described as "the rock".
That epithet is reserved totally for God himself, and the disciples would have been abundantly aware of that link being made.

2Sam22v32For who is God, except the LORD? and who is the rock, except our God?
To make either Peter himself, or his revelation, into the rock, completely denies the above scripture which declares that there is only one rock and that is God. Neither Peter, nor his revelation are God.
2sam23v3The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me, He that rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.
And its not just David, here is Moses speaking.-
Deut32v18You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth.
Here is Isaiah.-
Is17v10You have forgotten God your Savior; you have not remembered the Rock, your fortress.
Here is Paul.-
1Cor10v3and all ate the same spiritual food; 4and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (Petra=mountain) which followed them; and that rock (Petra=mountain) was Christ.
Here's Peter himself.-
1Peter2v8And, A stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra=mountain) of offense, even to them who stumble at the word, being disobedient: to which also they were appointed.

I have selected a few references from many hundreds available, every last one clearly demonstrating that the rock can only be God himself, as revealed in Christ Jesus. He alone is the Rock on which the church must be founded. Any other foundation is false, a substitute masquerading as Christ himself.

Before we can possibly discuss the church, we have to decide what we believe of its foundation.
Is the foundation man or the living God himself?
Is the foundation Peter's testimony or is it the living God himself?
Do you make you assumption that Simon was called Peter from the get go because of "Matthew 4 18"? Don`t you realize that Matthew wrote the gospel "After" the death and resurrection of Jesus? And by that time most probably knew him as Peter (Cephas) And so Matthew may have pointed this out so that those reading that may know that the Simon he was on about was indeed "Cephas" Of course we know that everything is based on Christ, he is the word of God, not Peter. I would never claim that the church should follow the word of Peter, but the word of Jesus Christ. But God always does things it seems in relationship with man. God chose Moses to deliver his people from Egypt. Did he come down himself and do it? No, he did it through a man. He says we are the branches and he is the vine. They are inextricably intertwined in their relationship to each other. Of course, branches can be cut off whilst the vine remains in tact. But the point is God wants closeness to us, he wants relationship and cooperation with is. Indeed that`s what being free agents is all about, which is why he made us so. Jesus founded the church on his closest and most beloved confidants, since he had to leave us and go back to his father. He left them with HIS word to spread throughout the world, HIS message of salvation. Christ is the head of the church, Paul makes that clear enough. Of course, I`m not defending the Catholic church, but neither am I demonizing it. This in my opinion is what has to stop. There is a certain innate and taught hatred of the church in Rome which in my opinion is unwarranted. Yes she has errors, but so do most. The seven churches of revelations had errors too, and had fallen into error in a very short space of time. Did Christ condemn them? No, he admonished them and told them to repent or that he would come against them. I personally believe there are good Christian Catholics and protestants alike. But then you have those "Die hards" (as you said yourself Francis) that will not quit demonizing on both sides. A kind of bitter residue that hangs on post reformation. I know what you think Francis, you think the church in Rome is the seat of Antichrist, and so many like you think the same. But you have been misled by those who are descended from people bitterly opposed to it. Soon, you will see the true seat of Antichrist established, where Jesus said the seat of Satan was from the beginning of the church age. Maybe this is what it will take to stop the petty squabbling amongst the churches, the different branches that Jesus himself said would come from the mustard seed, those who have faith in him. Peace.

Welcome to the Biblical and Theology Section of 1Faith

[Raise a Debate] @ 1faith

Your post will be answered shortly

Raise a Debate - by posting bait !

Offline Copernicus B

Re: God's tumbleweed church.
« Reply #9 on: January 03, 2016, 10:22:14 PM »
I also find it rather ironic that Christians argue about who the Antichrist is on faith forums whilst Christians are being slaughtered by Antichrist as we speak.

Offline tribalchristian

Re: God's tumbleweed church.
« Reply #10 on: January 04, 2016, 12:26:28 AM »
Dear FD,

I like what you said about snow balls and tumbleweeds!

Blessings,

Michael
"Listen, Hear, and Obey On Time"

Offline francis drake

Re: God's tumbleweed church.
« Reply #11 on: January 04, 2016, 02:57:33 PM »
Do you make you assumption that Simon was called Peter from the get go because of "Matthew 4 18"? Don`t you realize that Matthew wrote the gospel "After" the death and resurrection of Jesus? And by that time most probably knew him as Peter (Cephas) And so Matthew may have pointed this out so that those reading that may know that the Simon he was on about was indeed "Cephas" Of course we know that everything is based on Christ, he is the word of God, not Peter.
I'm sorry CB, but your assertion that Jesus renamed Simon to Peter after his "confession" in Matt16v18 is just not born out by the facts, which plainly prove that Jesus renamed him when they first met!
John1v41He first found his own brother Simon, and said unto him, We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
42And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, You are Simon the son of Jonah: you shall be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. (ie. Petros)

So Jesus was calling Simon/Peter/Cephas, a pebble right from the beginning!

And he was also still being called Cephas (stone/pebble) long after Pentecost.-
1Cor1v11For it has been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them who are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12Now this I say, that every one of you says, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.


In reading these verses, I find it quite amusing. Jesus obviously knows Peter because he can see people's hearts. All through the NT we can see Peter has a tendency to brashness and impetuousness. ie. "Bid me come on the water" or "I will never desert you!" So Jesus starts their relationship by calling him a pebble! Jesus is a real tease!

My problem with these alternative interpretations of a plain straight forward passage is that they are all "red herrings" deliberately put there by the enemy to direct people away from the real truth that Christ alone in person, is the very foundation stone of the church body.

Putting someone else, or something else, on that throne instead of Christ precisely describes the antichrist because that's what the word Antichrist actually means.
The following is pasted from Strong's online concordance.
antichristos: antichrist, (one who opposes Christ)
Original Word: ἀντίχριστος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: antichristos
Phonetic Spelling: (an-tee'-khris-tos)
Short Definition: antichrist
Definition: antichrist, either one who puts himself in the place of, or the enemy (opponent) of the Messiah.
HELPS Word-studies
500 ant?xristos (from 473 /ant?, "opposite to, in place of" and 5547 /Xrist?s, "Christ") ? properly, opposite to Christ; someone acting in place of (against) Christ; "Antichrist."


And this has absolutely nothing to do with Catholic bashing CB, as all churches seem to use the same man made hierarchical formula, even down to the local house group.
The juxtaposition of the double vision of the frozen snowball vs the tumbleweed illustrates it quite well. I didn't conjure up that vision!

Quote
I would never claim that the church should follow the word of Peter, but the word of Jesus Christ.
If that's so, why do you keep trying to defend the indefensible about Peter's special status?
Disturb us Lord, when we are too pleased with ourselves. When our dreams have come true because we dreamed too little. When we arrived safely because we sailed too close to the shore. Disturb us Lord, to dare more boldly. To venture on wider seas. Where storms will show your mastery; Where, losing sight of land, we shall find the stars. We ask you to push back the horizons of our hopes; And to push into the future, in strength, courage, hope and love.                     (SIR FRANCIS DRAKE 1577)

Offline Copernicus B

Re: God's tumbleweed church.
« Reply #12 on: January 04, 2016, 09:06:02 PM »
I'm sorry CB, but your assertion that Jesus renamed Simon to Peter after his "confession" in Matt16v18 is just not born out by the facts, which plainly prove that Jesus renamed him when they first met!
John1v41He first found his own brother Simon, and said unto him, We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
42And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, You are Simon the son of Jonah: you shall be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. (ie. Petros)

So Jesus was calling Simon/Peter/Cephas, a pebble right from the beginning!

And he was also still being called Cephas (stone/pebble) long after Pentecost.-
1Cor1v11For it has been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them who are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12Now this I say, that every one of you says, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.


In reading these verses, I find it quite amusing. Jesus obviously knows Peter because he can see people's hearts. All through the NT we can see Peter has a tendency to brashness and impetuousness. ie. "Bid me come on the water" or "I will never desert you!" So Jesus starts their relationship by calling him a pebble! Jesus is a real tease!

My problem with these alternative interpretations of a plain straight forward passage is that they are all "red herrings" deliberately put there by the enemy to direct people away from the real truth that Christ alone in person, is the very foundation stone of the church body.

Putting someone else, or something else, on that throne instead of Christ precisely describes the antichrist because that's what the word Antichrist actually means.
The following is pasted from Strong's online concordance.
antichristos: antichrist, (one who opposes Christ)
Original Word: ἀντίχριστος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: antichristos
Phonetic Spelling: (an-tee'-khris-tos)
Short Definition: antichrist
Definition: antichrist, either one who puts himself in the place of, or the enemy (opponent) of the Messiah.
HELPS Word-studies
500 ant?xristos (from 473 /ant?, "opposite to, in place of" and 5547 /Xrist?s, "Christ") ? properly, opposite to Christ; someone acting in place of (against) Christ; "Antichrist."


And this has absolutely nothing to do with Catholic bashing CB, as all churches seem to use the same man made hierarchical formula, even down to the local house group.
The juxtaposition of the double vision of the frozen snowball vs the tumbleweed illustrates it quite well. I didn't conjure up that vision!
If that's so, why do you keep trying to defend the indefensible about Peter's special status?
I`m afraid that your interpretations of the word anti are all conspiratorial. I can provide many links showing that anti does not mean "In place of" It mean opposing, or against. You cannot stretch the meaning of the word to mean "In place of" or "Substituting" That simply is not the meaning of the word. But you have to come up with that meaning to make your hypothesis fit. Again I ask you to show me where the CC deny the father and the son. I ask you to show me where in the bible where the word "Antichrist" is defined as anything other than "He who denies is the father and the son" In regards to Peter, okay, I missed that, and it seems he did call him Peter before Peter`s declaration, although I disagree that the word Peter means "Pebble" again that is very conspiratorial. Most sources I have come across state the name means rock. However, I guess that has little or nothing to do with the fact that Jesus imparted authority to him, and that he imparted his authority to the church. I`m not trying to dismiss your vision Francis, and I do understand what you mean, do be easily mover by the wind, the spirit of God. But maybe what we are on about are two different things. Maybe you are on about being free and flexible as an individual Christian and to be easily moved by the spirit, and maybe I`m on about the solidness of doctrine. Maybe we have our wires crossed. Peace.

Offline francis drake

Re: God's tumbleweed church.
« Reply #13 on: January 04, 2016, 10:01:28 PM »
I`m afraid that your interpretations of the word anti are all conspiratorial. I can provide many links showing that anti does not mean "In place of" It mean opposing, or against. You cannot stretch the meaning of the word to mean "In place of" or "Substituting" That simply is not the meaning of the word. But you have to come up with that meaning to make your hypothesis fit.
You are right CB about the English common usage of the prefix "anti". But in the original Greek it also carries the meaning I have presented and that is the generally accepted interpretation when used in front of the word "antichrist".
All I have done is cut and paste from probably of the most well known of all concordances, one I use all the time.
CB, may I suggest you do a search for the Greek meaning of "antichrist", rather than just the English usage of "anti", which is different. Please show me anywhere that supports your interpretation whilst excluding mine, because I couldn't find any.

However I assure you that there is nothing conspiratorial about it at all, just simple and progressive logic.

It is also obvious that if instead of openly opposing a person, someone surreptitiously steals his place, then he is also opposing him, but in a far more subtle manner.
That's what happened in the Garden of Eden, when Satan affectively presented the Tree of Knowledge as a perfectly good substitute for the Tree of Life. Adam and Eve swallowed it, just like people swallow what the spirit of antichrist feeds them.
Quote
Again I ask you to show me where the CC deny the father and the son.
For goodness sake CB, will you stop going on about the Catholic Church. The Catholic church wasn't even invented when the antichrist first appeared. I am talking about the "Spirit of Antichrist", and antichrists plural, which have been with us since John first mentioned it. That spirit is working subtly throughout the whole of the church, not just the catholics.
Disturb us Lord, when we are too pleased with ourselves. When our dreams have come true because we dreamed too little. When we arrived safely because we sailed too close to the shore. Disturb us Lord, to dare more boldly. To venture on wider seas. Where storms will show your mastery; Where, losing sight of land, we shall find the stars. We ask you to push back the horizons of our hopes; And to push into the future, in strength, courage, hope and love.                     (SIR FRANCIS DRAKE 1577)

Offline Copernicus B

Re: God's tumbleweed church.
« Reply #14 on: January 04, 2016, 10:29:54 PM »
You are right CB about the English common usage of the prefix "anti". But in the original Greek it also carries the meaning I have presented and that is the generally accepted interpretation when used in front of the word "antichrist".
All I have done is cut and paste from probably of the most well known of all concordances, one I use all the time.
CB, may I suggest you do a search for the Greek meaning of "antichrist", rather than just the English usage of "anti", which is different. Please show me anywhere that supports your interpretation whilst excluding mine, because I couldn't find any.

However I assure you that there is nothing conspiratorial about it at all, just simple and progressive logic.

It is also obvious that if instead of openly opposing a person, someone surreptitiously steals his place, then he is also opposing him, but in a far more subtle manner.
That's what happened in the Garden of Eden, when Satan affectively presented the Tree of Knowledge as a perfectly good substitute for the Tree of Life. Adam and Eve swallowed it, just like people swallow what the spirit of antichrist feeds them.For goodness sake CB, will you stop going on about the Catholic Church. The Catholic church wasn't even invented when the antichrist first appeared. I am talking about the "Spirit of Antichrist", and antichrists plural, which have been with us since John first mentioned it. That spirit is working subtly throughout the whole of the church, not just the catholics.
Calm down FD, we are merely discussing the issue. In regards to "The spirit of Antichrist" as you put it (In the singular) John clearly defines what that is.

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. 1John 4:3

Now there are a few churches that deny the trinity, deny that Jesus was eternally God, saying he was created or that he is the Archangel Michael ect ect. These obviously qualify as "The spirit of Antichrist" Whatever the CC is (With it`s many many errors) it is not that. The reason I`m harping on as it were about the CC is because it`s the prime candidate in many minds as being the spirit of Antichrist. But this has no scriptural backing whatsoever. However, Islam fits the description of "The spirit of Antichrist" perfectly. It is purported that Muhammad was steeped in Gnosticsim, and got the best part of his teachings from that source. I think we can accurately identify the early Gnostics as the ones John was speaking of when he said

"They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

Both Luther and Calvin thought that Islam as was the advent of Antichrist.

Peace.

Offline francis drake

Re: God's tumbleweed church.
« Reply #15 on: January 05, 2016, 09:44:54 PM »
Calm down FD, we are merely discussing the issue. In regards to "The spirit of Antichrist" as you put it (In the singular) John clearly defines what that is.

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. 1John 4:3

That narrow definition in 1John4v3 is not exclusive to all other definitions CB. Jesus himself made that clear.
Matt24v3And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.


Jesus's own words in the above verses demonstrate that "antichrist" does not mean someone standing in direct visible opposition of Christ. An antichrist is simply someone who comes in Christ's name, subtly taking his place. This supplanting of Christ has been going on ever since Jesus issued the warning, and John effectively repeated it in 1John4.
Thus anyone who stands in the place of Christ, whether he be Simon Peter, or the Pope, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or your local pastor, it is that same spirit at work.
 1Tim2v5For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
Only a fool lets anyone get between him and Jesus Christ
Quote
Disturb us Lord, when we are too pleased with ourselves. When our dreams have come true because we dreamed too little. When we arrived safely because we sailed too close to the shore. Disturb us Lord, to dare more boldly. To venture on wider seas. Where storms will show your mastery; Where, losing sight of land, we shall find the stars. We ask you to push back the horizons of our hopes; And to push into the future, in strength, courage, hope and love.                     (SIR FRANCIS DRAKE 1577)

Welcome to the Biblical and Theology Section of 1Faith

[Raise a Debate] @ 1faith

Your post will be answered shortly

Raise a Debate - by posting bait !