It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Simon Peter the Roman

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: zardust

I agree with you here, Jesus was speaking of the revelation aspect as the rock of the the church, but I think there is a reason that Jesus referred to Peter by name and it may have been to point out the dichotomy of Peter (who is traditionally seen as a founder of the church) and the true church. It's almost like he was saying "you are 'petros' but 'petra' is the true rock of my church".

Just my 2 cents.
The reason is the revelation that zardust mentioned on his/her post. That revelation is the cornerstone, the "Petra" in which the church stands. Or in Greek

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι Ἅιδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

Its because Peter with his statement laid the foundation in which the church stands. And that statement is the reason why Jesus referred to him by name. The statement is the "Petra". That statement was :

ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπεν Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος.


Some more info about your opening quote

Matthew 7:9 Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone?


In Greek there is another word that is used. Not Peter or Petra but λίθον. Which reads :

ἢ τίς ἐστιν ἐξ ὑμῶν ἄνθρωπος, ὃν αἰτήσει ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἄρτον, μὴ λίθον ἐπιδώσει αὐτῷ;


Peace
edit on 19-8-2015 by Seed76 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Great stuff. S/F

I never really noticed the few things you mention in such symphonic layout before, of the things concerning the time leading up to the trial of Jesus. I did know that Jesus called Peter Satan and I have seen the connection this must have to the Church, and how Peter was crucified up side down, and was the supposed ruler/bishop of the Christian Romans. What I hadn't noticed was that Peter is in fact sitting together with the people he had just attacked with hard steel, that's rather odd. And when you draw the line between John 18:36 and 18:10, it's like OY! Jesus is saying more or less straight out that Peter is no longer one of his servants. I never noticed that before
Oh my! Weren't the dragons flying low that awful night—
edit on 22-8-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

As compared to Peter being the first bishop of Rome and thus the first pope of the RC Church, what if Jesus was referring to cliff town of Petra in Jordan?

Petra means cliff by the way. And in Hebrew they called the place Sela (lit. Rock, Cliff):

Send [Gr «Apostelo» in LXX; compare Eng. «Apostle»] the lamb [Gr. «Herpeta» in LXX; i.e. «Reptiles»] to the ruler of the land, from Sela [«Petra» in LXX], by way of the desert, to the mount of the daughter of Zion. [ESV] Isaiah 16:1

Compared to the Crucifixion story, if Peter is considered this lamb here (and not Jesus), he is one with the mouth like a dragon, the false prophet, i.e. the Pope, and this also shows us why we should love our enemies. These satans are among God's instruments. Had Peter not been false here, things would probably had a worse end altogether, and maybe the Church would not have been established the way the good lord intended. Peter's white lies also tells us how the guards Peter was mingling with didn't recognise him. Peter is false again, infiltrating the Roman guards hiding under cover of not knowing.

This more than anything shows me that the Bishop of Rome AKA The Pope is the intended second beast AKA The False Prophet in Revelation I think. The falseness involved with the second beast of Revelation may very well be seen as deception, codes, even infiltration. Now what happened in the years up to AD 325? Oh that's right, Roman Empire is split, and within two centuries it would be but a puff of smoke, the Empire fell, but the Church prevailed and came out the other end the winner. The Roman Curia (House of the Roman Senate) was now the highest seats of authority in the Catholic Church. And what do you know, for quite some time they kept the prominent Nike/Victoria statue there. The Curia is still the highest authority in the Roman Catholic Church. If you ask me the word Church reflects the Lat. name Curia more than Gr. Kyriakos.

ETA: But back a wee bit to Heb. Sela and how it is used in OT. In the Torah it is used 7 times, and always with reference to the rock from where Moses drew water by commands and hitting it with his staff. All in all in OT there are 59 Occurrences of the Heb. word Sela.

edit on 22-8-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: eta



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Send [Gr «Apostelo» in LXX; compare Eng. «Apostle»] the lamb [Gr. «Herpeta» in LXX; i.e. «Reptiles»] to the ruler of the land, from Sela [«Petra» in LXX], by way of the desert, to the mount of the daughter of Zion. [ESV] Isaiah 16:1


After having located the above verse in the Codex Sinaiticus (early Christian LXX), it appears the verse has been doctored or edited, and very crudely so. See the verse below (red emphasis mine), first sentence of Isaiah 16:1 in red:



And like I showed above the LXX reads «Reptiles» where the Masoretic text has «Lamb», is this the whole antichrist mystery solved? The Masoretic BHS text has Heb «כר» or «Car» which means «Lamb»— odd....

Apparently the text said

Gr. αποϲτελω [send out] ϲα [?] ερπετα [reptiles] απο [from, away from] τηϲ [?] γηϲ [?] --
-- then someone changed it into --
Gr. αποϲτελωϲ [Send out] ερπετα [reptiles] επi [upon] την [in among] γην [the land] --

«Send out your reptiles upon Ten [in, on, among] Gen [The Land]»
-- Now this is quite interesting. Why did they change the kasus here? To make «the daughter of Sion» appear as the one receiving the reptiles? This is relevant.

-- Sort of turns the table concerning this «reptile-lamb» of Isaiah. I bet this verse here is what John the Scribe refers to when he speaks of how the second beast has two horns like a lamb (lambs got horns?) but sounds like a dragon; how Isaiah 16:1 in the LXX vs. BHS readings concerning the promised messiah, describes the Lamb (BHS) as Reptiles (LXX).
edit on 22-8-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
peter is the Jew Peter. Jupiter. The rock. Jesus is the Sun. The giver of life, the light of the world, Gods only SUN.

All the characters in the bible are literary symbols of stars, planets, and constellations.
edit on 22-8-2015 by booyakasha because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: yulka


If you cannot live in balance on earth as a human, then you arent a human.

If anything, the opposite is true.

Since the Cognitive Revolution 70,000 years ago, humans have caused mass extinctions on every continent except Africa and Antarctica, as well as in almost every isolated landmass they settled. They have profoundly altered the environment everywhere, trashing natural ecosystems to build their farms, cities and factories. Even hunter-gatherers wreak immense change on natural wilderness habitats.

The entire planet has human fingerprints on it.

Geologists and climatologists are now calling the era since the Industrial Revolution the Anthropocene. They're being a bit modest: the Anthropocene started 45,000 years ago, when humans landed in Australia and ruined its natural environment.


edit on 27/8/15 by Astyanax because: of some rubbish.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

'Petra' is feminine. 'Petros' is masculine.

Sorry, that duck won't fly.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

The masculine/feminine thing is interesting. The church is considered to be the bride of Christ, it is feminine, yet the church is overwhelmingly run by males. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

If you look at the fact that a feminine institution is run largely by males, it gives a whole new meaning to "homosexuality" being a sin. The body and bride of Christ should be a female dominated institution, not male dominated.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1


The masculine/feminine thing is interesting. The church is considered to be the bride of Christ, it is feminine, yet the church is overwhelmingly run by males. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

No, of course not. Religious structures are social hierarchies, ruled over by alpha males.


If you look at the fact that a feminine institution is run largely by males, it gives a whole new meaning to "homosexuality" being a sin. The body and bride of Christ should be a female dominated institution, not male dominated.

Christian churches are not feminine institutions, but overwhelmingly masculine ones.

All non-concrete concepts are fictions, you know.


edit on 28/8/15 by Astyanax because: it's all lies anyway.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

The church is called the bride, that's the point I'm trying to make. Something labeled with a feminine adjective being male dominated. What do we call men who act like women? Homosexuals. The church is a bunch of men who are called the bride. See the connection I'm trying to make here? The organized church is "man lying with man" metaphorically.
edit on 8/28/2015 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Sure, but that's all contemporary fiction and prejudice.

Perhaps you've missed the point I'm making, which is that disapproving of religion because it's false, hypocritical and potentially dangerous is stating the obvious. It's meant to be like that: human beings need these vast fictions in order to promote cooperation with one another and sustain cultures larger than a big hunter-gatherer band.

If you get rid of religion, what will you put in its place? Science? Science cannot susbtitute for the personal, social and cultural benefits of religion. Besides, science — as an abstract entity — is merely another fiction. Scientific studies exist, scientists exist, but there is no such thing as science. Please think hard about what I am saying: all abstract entities are fictitious, but it is necessary to sustain these fictions in order to preserve civilization. Money, too, is a fiction of this kind. So are all political philosophies and ideals, the concept of romantic love, and so forth.

Religion is no better and no worse than any of these other fictions.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Ill give you a thought, do you think science is different from religion?



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 02:58 AM
link   
a reply to: yulka

Absolutely.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Now tell me how, I know you are smart, but you still reside within the bubble, science is based on the most withholding paradigm, make a difference from science?



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

When HS roamed the earth in 70-45ka, they were still taking small steps, first Neolithic evidence arose 10ka including including terraforming. In 4000BC Babylon came and the fourth dimension occurred for the very purpose of warfare, I can make a hyper cube, in your bubble, that would be like a time traveler. We became parasites in the last man of age. Cause the paradigm didn't fit the purpose.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: yulka

You haven't the first idea where I reside, and I'm afraid your post is unintelligible.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: yulka

I think you have a bit of catching up to do with regard to the latest thinking in anthropology and evolutionary biology.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

I never argued whether religion was a necessary part of culture, I was only pointing out that the church seems to be demonizing what it itself is.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

That's because the origin of the Church is not one that is sincere. The Roman Church was and to some extent still is— Rome's instrument of countering anything decent or worthy, counting and naming those worthy, blotting out those who're not. Every doctrine written, every sacrament, and every reason given for the Church to remain in its present form is a sin and diversion from the truth in all its potential that the Church is supposed to be founded upon. The history of the Church is the story of moral decay and systematical sacrilege. The Church is a peacock with absolutely NO relevance today. The Church is holding the world back, by enforcing bronze-age ideals and justice in a modern age of dynamic transmutation and moral transcendence. The church is selling a product that was already old when it was put to market.
edit on 28-8-2015 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax


My own view is that Jesus was simply appointing a leader among his disciples, someone they could turn to for advice and decisions when their master had left the scene. He wasn't mandating the future Bishops of Rome to exert authority over the whole Christian community or act as arbiters of Scripture and doctrine.

If your view is correct the why was James the Just (Jacob) chosen by Jesus to be the Nasi of the first Christian Synagogue? The gospel of Thomas declares that Jesus chose James before His death to lead His Church. This first church was entirely Hebrew and Aramaic liturgy and Greek and Latin were forbidden to influence the congregation.

Gospel of Thomas
12. The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"
Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

James was the President, High Priest, Nasi for over thirty years with John being second and Peter being third in rank of the congregation.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join