Peter's Daystar?

[stabalizer]

Im replicating this post from a different subcatagory because I don't know how to simply move. Sorry

Did Peter Have a personal daystar event? (2nd Peter 1:19) Can you locate it?

Explain the signifigance of the question.

 

[Van]

Did Peter have a "daystar event?" Having no idea what others might believe is a "daystar event" I am going to respond with my own view.

Peter is making the case that what Peter has revealed is from God and not a clever story devised by men. Peter's teachings concerning the return of Jesus was not only based on scripture, the prophesy in God's word, but also upon what Peter saw for himself. I think Peter is referring to the transfiguration described in Matthew 17.

In summary, until Christ returns, we are to use insights gained from prayerful study of scripture to light our way.

 

[Outrider]

Im replicating this post from a different subcatagory because I don't know how to simply move. Sorry

Did Peter Have a personal daystar event? (2nd Peter 1:19) Can you locate it?

Explain the signifigance of the question.

Rev. 2:28 (ESV)
And I will give him the morning star.
As opposed to the Wormwood thqat is cast down to earth in judgment... Jesus himself is the Star.
Rev. 22:16 (ESV)
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."

 

[stabalizer]

Did Peter have a "daystar event?" Having no idea what others might believe is a "daystar event" I am going to respond with my own view.

Peter is making the case that what Peter has revealed is from God and not a clever story devised by men. Peter's teachings concerning the return of Jesus was not only based on scripture, the prophesy in God's word, but also upon what Peter saw for himself. I think Peter is referring to the transfiguration described in Matthew 17.

In summary, until Christ returns, we are to use insights gained from prayerful study of scripture to light our way.

I really appreciate your response, I want to assure you, it's my prayer God will open your understanding of what I'm about to explain.

YOU'RE SOOO CLOSE;

Peter is dicussing two supernatural events; the 1st is the transfiguration, Matt 17.

the 2nd is the conversion process ie; the daystar arising in the heart ,the 2nd being more sure than the 1st.

He's comparing two historical events in his life.

In Matt 16:18 . he's doing Rom 10:10.

Rom 10:10 IS THE PROCESS OF CREATION. It's something one does not repeats.

iow Salvation is an event , not a decision.

The rock is the process of conversion. Spiritual law.

I can expound further, I've posted this three times thru inerrant computer glitches. Satanic in origin I think!

 

[stabalizer]

Rev. 2:28 (ESV)
And I will give him the morning star.
As opposed to the Wormwood thqat is cast down to earth in judgment... Jesus himself is the Star.
Rev. 22:16 (ESV)
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."

There's no answer to the post here.

HINT/ daystar- sun

Sun= source of light

LIGHT= displells darkness Psa 119:130

Illumination= revelation knowlege

rev knowl= spiritual alignment

sp align= fulfillment of righteousness (in the heart)

Righteousness births confession

confession releases authority. by your words you shalll be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned.

Releasing your word allows God to answer on your behalf/ this manifest the substance of things hoped for.

God bless

 

[Van]

Here is the text:19And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,

So the contention is that "until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts" is saying until you are born again and indwelt with the Spirit of Christ. I think it is more likely a reference to the second coming - see Mark 13:26. Note that Peter seems to be speaking to born again folks, so their conversion has already happened. The "arise in our hearts" could just refer to our transformation (bodily resurrection) free at last from the influence of our corrupt flesh, the dawning of a new day with the morning star arising in our hearts.

In any event, thanks for sharing an alternate view of the text.

 

[stabalizer]

Here is the text:19And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,

So the contention is that "until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts" is saying until you are born again and indwelt with the Spirit of Christ. I think it is more likely a reference to the second coming - see Mark 13:26. Note that Peter seems to be speaking to born again folks, so their conversion has already happened. The "arise in our hearts" could just refer to our transformation (bodily resurrection) free at last from the influence of our corrupt flesh, the dawning of a new day with the morning star arising in our hearts.

In any event, thanks for sharing an alternate view of the text.

Exactly, the daystar event is the salvation event.

Consider this; an old man about to die wants to leave behind what he knows as a matter of experience, not reason.

Peter is discribing two historical events in his life,
the latter can only be matt 16:18

It takes a bit of meditation to finally see it,

the reason it's so fundemental is because it defines , "THIS ROCK"

The process of salavation. is what the gates of hell cannot prevail.

Peter's confession was borne of old testament scripture because of what he saw when Jesus asked the 1st question.

If you comprehend the rock, you get it all.

the rock and the conception are tied together by spiritual law.

If you understand how Jesus came into the world the first time, you comprehend how he's coming the 2nd time.

Tell me the common thread between the two? (the rock and the conception)

Tell me historically and how it applies to the now,

I'm trying to change passive consent into participatory faith as a matter of service to God. iow/ the return of Christ is the responsibilty of the church in the earth.

That's why I'm on this forum!

Somebody?

 

[Outrider]

There's no answer to the post here.

Correction: There's no agreement with your hair-brained hermeneutics.

HINT/ daystar- sun

The sun is never referred to as a star in the entire Bible. You are imposing modern scientific categories on the text. This is eisegesis and a wrong handling of the text. "Daystar" refers directly to Venus, the Morning Star. It is figurative for that light which broke through the darkness and bitterness of the world under Satan, i.e. Jesus. I don't understand why you would not want to see Jesus in this passage. Do you have a problem with Jesus being the Light of the World instead of man (i.e. you "releasing your confession so that you can allow God to answer)? Man does not have authority over God under any circumstances. Get that "doctrine out of your mind and you'll begin to come alive and grow.

Sun= source of light

LIGHT= displells darkness Psa 119:130

Illumination= revelation knowlege

rev knowl= spiritual alignment

sp align= fulfillment of righteousness (in the heart)

Righteousness births confession

This system is elemental, but it is essentially a doctrine of works righteousness, condemned by Paul throughout the book of Galatians.

confession releases authority.

You made this up.

by your words you shalll be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned.

Salvation is not through words, Final judgment is based on words (and other things,i.e. thoughts, deeds).

Releasing your word allows God to answer on your behalf/ this manifest the substance of things hoped for.

This is rank insubordination. God is God, the sovereign of man. Indeed you are trying to "change passive consent into participatory faith as a matter of service to God." You need to study all that Bible teaches about obedience. It is not about participation. I suggest you repent of this false doctrine immediately and listen to wiser lights than your own. "The heart is deceitful above all things and desparately wicked, who can know it?"

God bless

He does, thank you.

 

[stabalizer]

Correction: There's no agreement with your hair-brained hermeneutics.

The sun is never referred to as a star in the entire Bible. You are imposing modern scientific categories on the text. This is eisegesis and a wrong handling of the text. "Daystar" refers directly to Venus, the Morning Star. It is figurative for that light which broke through the darkness and bitterness of the world under Satan, i.e. Jesus. I don't understand why you would not want to see Jesus in this passage. Do you have a problem with Jesus being the Light of the World instead of man (i.e. you "releasing your confession so that you can allow God to answer)? Man does not have authority over God under any circumstances. Get that "doctrine out of your mind and you'll begin to come alive and grow.

This system is elemental, but it is essentially a doctrine of works righteousness, condemned by Paul throughout the book of Galatians.


You made this up.

Salvation is not through words, Final judgment is based on words (and other things,i.e. thoughts, deeds).

This is rank insubordination. God is God, the sovereign of man. Indeed you are trying to "change passive consent into participatory faith as a matter of service to God." You need to study all that Bible teaches about obedience. It is not about participation. I suggest you repent of this false doctrine immediately and listen to wiser lights than your own. "The heart is deceitful above all things and desparately wicked, who can know it?"

He does, thank you.

Sigh!

Way off base; and cynical I'd sooner listen to a jackass bray in a tin barn.

Clearly an episode of intellectual diarhea. I'll put you on my ignore list.

awful hateful for a supposed, "christian"

 

[sanct1fym3]

Here is the text:19And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,

So the contention is that "until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts" is saying until you are born again and indwelt with the Spirit of Christ. I think it is more likely a reference to the second coming - see Mark 13:26. Note that Peter seems to be speaking to born again folks, so their conversion has already happened. The "arise in our hearts" could just refer to our transformation (bodily resurrection) free at last from the influence of our corrupt flesh, the dawning of a new day with the morning star arising in our hearts.

In any event, thanks for sharing an alternate view of the text.

Out of all of you i like this one, but personal preference never created truth, i must say that this debate is rather unimportant to break fellowship over, i don't really care if someone were telling me that jonah is venus and the daystar is the five-thousand on the riverbank, i would still be expected to present truth in love, calling each other hairbrained jackasses seems to get just about nowhere. I hope this comment doesn't get me on anybody's ignore list.

 

[Outrider]

Sigh!

Way off base; and cynical I'd sooner listen to a jackass bray in a tin barn.

Clearly an episode of intellectual diarhea. I'll put you on my ignore list.

awful hateful for a supposed, "christian"

Show me where I'm wrong. You proposed a doctrine of works righteousness. That is a serious departure from the gospel delivered to Paul. I do not deny that I am a "jackass braying in a tin barn" (very clever, BTW, I nearly fell off my chair laughing at that one). It is my personal point of pride that if God vests his power in the foolish things of this world, I qualify for the vestment. But, if you're not ignoring me, you trun my post with three words "Way off base". My post suggests that you may be courting heresy. I think you'd better give a better apologetic for your, shall we say, imaginative approach to Scripture than a mere, "Way off base". And if you decide to put everyone on your Ignore List who challenges your views, I propose to you that you'll be doing monologue before too long.

 

[BigNorsk]

If I have a pet peeve, it is people who ask a question (best is a very cryptic question about very specific things) when they aren't asking a question at all, but only intend to get some responses so they can beat them up and then finally when everyone is driven to despar...Ta Daaaa! Here is the only correct answer, and I had it all along.

Frankly, I wish such was clearly outlawed and deleted. The whole process seems dishonest to me.

Marv

 

[stabalizer]

Out of all of you i like this one, but personal preference never created truth, i must say that this debate is rather unimportant to break fellowship over, i don't really care if someone were telling me that jonah is venus and the daystar is the five-thousand on the riverbank, i would still be expected to present truth in love, calling each other hairbrained jackasses seems to get just about nowhere. I hope this comment doesn't get me on anybody's ignore list.

Sometimes love requires correction ( an open rebuke is better than secret love)

The importance of the message is paramount.

Is salvation a decision or an event?

Isn't the process of salvation going from one event to the next?

Faith is not passive, never has been or will be. History proves this.

God's never condemned righteous behavior nor has Paul.

It's the Word that manifest the illumination and thereby birthing heart believe.

I"ll repeat myself for the sake of clarity, Peter"s declaration of Jesus as the Son of God was borne of old testament scripture. He DID Rms 10:10.

This is spiritual law.

The only reason he wasn't converted on the spot is because he was on the wrong side of the cross. H S wasn't given yet.

Ill be clear, I say this because I experienced it. My Daystar event was borne of the gospel of John, but my confession was the same as peter's.

Receiving the Holy Spirit is an event not a decision, (man's)

iow Salvation or the conditons to fulfill righteousness are conditional.

God sees our efforts. We cannot force God's hand but we can move His heart.

Acting like everything we do is unrighteous isn't scriptural.

So what I am contending is in 2nd Peter Chpt 1; Peter is talking about two historical events, both in his youth. He's comparing the two, the latter being more sure than the first. the 1st was the transfiguration of Matt 17, a supernatural event outside his control, the 2nd being his declaration of Jesus as the Son of God, an internal heart belief event within his control. Borne of the Word of God.

What's so hard about that?

Flesh and blood diidn't reveal it, My father in heaven revealed this to you.

There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit. and these three are one!

Again, the (this) rock on which the church is built is the process of conversion which terminnates in the confession (according to knowledge.)

No heart belief, no conversion. It's the difference between mental assent and heart believe. ( this also defines the spirit of antichrist)

that's all I can say for now.

 

[stabalizer]

Show me where I'm wrong. You proposed a doctrine of works righteousness. That is a serious departure from the gospel delivered to Paul. I do not deny that I am a "jackass braying in a tin barn" (very clever, BTW, I nearly fell off my chair laughing at that one). It is my personal point of pride that if God vests his power in the foolish things of this world, I qualify for the vestment. But, if you're not ignoring me, you trun my post with three words "Way off base". My post suggests that you may be courting heresy. I think you'd better give a better apologetic for your, shall we say, imaginative approach to Scripture than a mere, "Way off base". And if you decide to put everyone on your Ignore List who challenges your views, I propose to you that you'll be doing monologue before too long.

Well, I've cooled off. your opening remark was name calling , your assumptions were misinterpretations and I'm not stupid.

In the process of applying your faith to His promises, it involves a work of righteousness.

Can I prove you wrong? Probably not, but scripture can; Jas 2:21-24

iow, salvation is conditional and God sees our efforts, imperfect as they can be.

I never said let's go back to the letter of the law to obtain our, "bless me only" objectives of prayer.

In the midst of our struggle, God has His objectives as well. He can accomplish this even in our falling down.

the question is; How far will we allow the fall to continue before we cry out; Jesus, help me!

No man can receive anything except it be given from above.

The Word illuminates (spiritually)/ divine Revelation. Jesus is the Word made flesh.

The important issue is faith and appropiating it by / with knowledge.

Why would God condemn righteous behavior? Or Paul?

The new creation in Christ Jesus/ the regenerated man is different.
his heart is new/ recreated, so why would his prayers be offensive before his God?

the kingdom of heaven is a place of order and rule therefore spiritual law is in order and salvation is borne of obeying spiritual law. a continual process

Paul was speaking to old testament believers. were they wrong? not always?
does it apply now, of course. the letter kills , the spirit makes alive. I don't mind a challenge but not in an offensive, "repent or else" manner.

Hear me first/ inquire, discuss, meditate and then share the differences.

I will say this in my defense; I received the Holy Spirit through study and prayer Not in a church, but out at sea. reading the bible

I understand Rms 10:10 because I experienced it . I understand what , (This) rock entails.

I comprehend and understand the conception, how these two events are tied together and how they apply to the present. That's important to God's church.

I've been translated, as Phillip was in the book of acts, over 20+ miles ,instantaneously.

God has spoken to me audibly, by voice. and I have a calling, a calling I could'nt believe when I heard it. Plus many other things, some of which were terrifying and beautiful at the same time. You might glance at my intro.

I promise you, I know what I'm trying to explain to His church here is true.

All that's required is to set aside your religion and glean what I say and draw your own conclusions. pick up your beliefs after or leave them on the shelf. God can defend Himself.

I'm not a scholar, I'm just a carpenter. Why would I deceive you?

No gain for me.

In the words of Will Rodgers; "All men are ignorant, but just about different things."

God Bless, I'm sorry I flared up at you, I ask your forgiveness for it, but not for my beliefs.

I can verify what I say with scripture. I hope you hate religion as much as I do. the world is full of many forms of it.

 

[sanct1fym3]

Sometimes love requires correction ( an open rebuke is better than secret love)

The importance of the message is paramount.

Is salvation a decision or an event?

Isn't the process of salvation going from one event to the next?

Faith is not passive, never has been or will be. History proves this.

God's never condemned righteous behavior nor has Paul.

It's the Word that manifest the illumination and thereby birthing heart believe.

I"ll repeat myself for the sake of clarity, Peter"s declaration of Jesus as the Son of God was borne of old testament scripture. He DID Rms 10:10.

This is spiritual law.

The only reason he wasn't converted on the spot is because he was on the wrong side of the cross. H S wasn't given yet.

Ill be clear, I say this because I experienced it. My Daystar event was borne of the gospel of John, but my confession was the same as peter's.

Receiving the Holy Spirit is an event not a decision, (man's)

iow Salvation or the conditons to fulfill righteousness are conditional.

God sees our efforts. We cannot force God's hand but we can move His heart.

Acting like everything we do is unrighteous isn't scriptural.

So what I am contending is in 2nd Peter Chpt 1; Peter is talking about two historical events, both in his youth. He's comparing the two, the latter being more sure than the first. the 1st was the transfiguration of Matt 17, a supernatural event outside his control, the 2nd being his declaration of Jesus as the Son of God, an internal heart belief event within his control. Borne of the Word of God.

What's so hard about that?

Flesh and blood diidn't reveal it, My father in heaven revealed this to you.

There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit. and these three are one!

Again, the (this) rock on which the church is built is the process of conversion which terminnates in the confession (according to knowledge.)

No heart belief, no conversion. It's the difference between mental assent and heart believe. ( this also defines the spirit of antichrist)

that's all I can say for now.

This honestly isn't paramount, sry but salvation is salvation. Demons know that jesus is the Son of God, and are they saved? I have a hard time trying to split a hair between an event and a decision, can there be one without the other? I remember my salvation as an event and a decision, The bible clearly lays out how to get saved, it isn't ambiguous, whether in the heart or on the lips, event or decision, isn't the point and how does something that happened before the cross become a rule after the cross, the fact that he was the son of God wasn't going to save him since he hadn't died yet, he wasn't a sacrifice yet.

A perfect lamb wasn't going to cover a jews sins untill it was sacrificed. Just because a jew realized that he had in his possesion a perfect lamb didn't cover any sins.