Simon Peter the Roman

originally posted by: Seede
.............
You have neglected to acknowledge the quote and Unquote by the source. The source being "The Story of the Jesus Party in Israel, AD 36-66, Macdonald and Janes’s, St. Giles, 49/50 Poland Street, London, W.I., 1974, p 146)" - Not my story but the source of which you did not quote.

If you have another historical account of the first thirty three years of the Jesus movement then by all means post it here. My post did not state that this was anything other than a historical account of which is written that Peter was not the first authority in the Jesus movement. You still have the same problem of not understanding.

You have a very bad habit of reading into what is written to fit your agenda.I succinctly stated “it is very clear where you religious beliefs were born” in context of your post and yet your response is just more of your religious rhetoric.

It is impossible to take what you say with serious consideration when you have clearly created a new religion to believe in from extrapolating what others claim to be true history when the fact is they don’t know what happened either, it is just hobbling together of conjecture and calling it truth.

You have studied a book so diligently with blind ill intent you have turned the pages inside out.As long as they fit your religious agenda it doesn’t matter what the words are or mean.You claim you are of the “true” church of Jesus Christ yet Yahoshua had and has no “church” in this world(age...aion).The only place the church of a Jesus Christ exist is in the religion twisted mind of the believer.

What you don’t understand is Yahoshua was doing everything in contradiction to what you believe.He was not a practicing Jew and he was not a Nazarene as you believe that is what he was called just as the pharisees called him a glutton and wine bibber and Yahoshua rightly said wisdom is justified by it’s deeds.You study books of religion to justify your deeds and beliefs however they have nothing to do with the life as Yahoshua stated.

“You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have life yet it is these that bear witness of me and yet you are unwilling to come to me, that you may have life”.

As usual you will twist this into your own religious meaning to justify your deeds yet no matter how it is twisted this is the crux of what Yahoshua continually said to the religious pharisees then and now.Yahoshua nor the disciples created a religion “Christianity” no matter how much you believe you are a member of the “original” church faith.

Of what little is written of what Yahoshua said to his disciples the lion share is the Good news about freeing mankind “from” Hades ...death (the grave..the realm of death) and the bondage of their religion(the realm of imperception).In others words you have it all wrong. You believe your Jesus created a “better” religion when in fact there is no such thing… it is only a bigger prison with more bondage and death.Fortunately for ALL of mankind your Jesus and Yahoshua are not the same.

You can high five Zardust for speaking the core of the truth all you want yet you don’t hear what he said at all.Let me break it down so you won’t understand more.

originally posted by: zardust
The human heirarchy is not a part of the true ecclesia.

This means the church/circus ecclesia you believe in and are a part of is false.

originally posted by: zardust
There is one high priest. Not another man.James, at least as told by Eusebius would be an antichrist just as all the other clergy are.

This means the leader/founder of your church is an antichrist which means in place of the anointing just as Yahoshua and John said.

originally posted by: zardust
We need no mediators. We need no high priests. That is part of the Judaising, old wineskins, old ways, worldly, dead man religion.

This is the true condemnation of the bondage of religion.The bondage you are still in but cannot perceive just as Yahoshua said you would try to drink new wine from old wineskins that are destined to burst.To finish that line of thought.You have donned old worn out clothes and patched them with a new piece of cloth that tear the whole garment apart and will leave you naked.

originally posted by: zardust
Aka the institutional church, at that time Rome, but now the majority of Christendom follows the empire model of church aka the circus (same root word!), this church is the whore of Babylon. Or the unfaithful daughter/bride of Ezekiel 16. Spreading her legs to other men like high priests and pastors and bishop.

This is the whole of Christendom …..including your church.They were all born of the same woman… a religious whore.

This is what you gave a thumbs up to yet it was an indictment against all you believe just as what Yahoshua and the disciples said and did yet .....you can’t understand.I don’t condemn you for your beliefs because they are inevitable.Blind men lead other blind man into a ditch.You have been led into the Grand Canyon and are in a free fall.When you hit bottom you will be dead and not know where you are. Fortunately for you it will not be the hell you believe in.

The only reasonable thing a person can do is deny the abundance of your ignorance so others may not listen to your blind man empty words.I know you will not come to the knowledge of the truth but woe to you that attempts to bind others so they cannot hear either.Regardless of your religious propaganda the truth of the Good news will be heard by ALL of mankind… the truth you cannot hear right now….Yahoshua.. which means the creator God(Yahweh) IS deliverance/salvation for ALL of mankind.You can deny that all you want ..however that is the truth.

a reply to: Rex282

This means the church/circus ecclesia you believe in and are a part of is false

I have no denominational church and I do not subscribe to any particular congregation. Being false is simply your opinion but sadly you are a very confused judge.

Regardless of your religious propaganda the truth of the Good news will be heard by ALL of mankind… the truth you cannot hear right now….Yahoshua.. which means the creator God(Yahweh) IS deliverance/salvation for ALL of mankind.You can deny that all you want ..however that is the truth.

Don't you mean that you believe "your opinion is the truth?"

Now that you have been the judge and jury and have tried me in a public forum and found me wanting, I do not judge you in the same manner. We shall both have to wait and see how the Christ Jesus judges this matter. AS far as Zardust was concerned I do understand his true and well formed post and I believe exactly his intent. If all people were as loving and tender as he/she then this would indeed be a better world.

I do understand your zeal and uncontrollable anger for those who disagree with you and perhaps one day your eyes will be opened and your ears unstopped. God still works miracles and I will hope that one day He will show you how wrong I believe you truly are. LOL

originally posted by: Rex282
Fortunately for ALL of mankind your Jesus and Yahoshua are not the same. [...] the truth you cannot hear right now….Yahoshua.. which means the creator God(Yahweh) IS deliverance/salvation for ALL of mankind.

What's the deal with your Yehoshua? Did you look for the most bootstrapped variant of Jose you could find? Yehoshua was an archaic spelling even in the days of Jesus, and most likely he was named Isai or Hoshanan or Jeshua or similar name of contemporary or at least relevant Aramaic spelling. According to the Gospel he was named after the prophet Isajah. And he keeps defending the family name Bardavid, his mother's family name, as the Gospel also states Mother Mary was a Batdavid, of the House of David. Since Joseph denied being the father, Jesus would get his mother's surname, a shameful thing that would make a mamzer of him.

I think Jesus' real and full name could very likely have been Isai bar David. It's fitting, see? King David's father was named Isai, and Jesus jokes about how a son of David could be the messiah, when David himself calls him his lord, when he says «the lord said to my lord...», it's a riddle right tuned like stand-up, for who is king David's lord, if not his father? Isai? So that's why the Son of David is the lord of David, see? Since his name was Isai. Clever bird old Gabriel, whispering his puns to Joseph in the night.

a reply to: Rex282

May I ask you a question? Do you believe Jesus died on the cross for your sins and resurrected on the third day? Do you also believe that the bible is the inspired, ineffable, infallible word of God?

If so, pot meet kettle. If that's the case, zardust is speaking of you just as much as Seede.

Directed to Rex
Rex, I apologize for being rude and do owe you this apology.
It seems as though in the past we have had many differences in our understanding of religion. One thing that may surprise you is that I believe that you are well read and very intelligent. You do not know my background and if you did it would probably shock you just as it may shock me to know your life.

When I joined the ATS discussions I admit that I had much to learn from others simply because I had my own beliefs that were not compatible with the majority of people. I was taught as a youngster by rabbinic Christianity and it is very difficult for me to understand other people. I have come to understand things that I never knew existed by reading people such as Warminlndy, Utnapisjtim, 3NL1GHT3N3D1 and a host of others here on ATS. Most of these people most certainly disagree with me and I with them but that was what this forum was designed to bring to everyone. I don't want you to think that I do not not appreciate and respect you because that is not true. I honestly believed that I was not trolling in my posts but was trying to stay on target and not derail the OP.

If I did anger you by a snide remark then I do apologize for that haughtiness that is my nature. LOL

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Jesus claims that this world is not of his kingdom, saying that if it were, his servants would have fought to prevent his arrest. But wait, didn't Peter fight to prevent his arrest? How did Jesus forget this very important fact that he clearly witnessed not long before? Is he claiming that Peter is not his servant, but is actually the servant of Satan? He does call Peter Satan at one point and that Satan was "sifting him as wheat" as well, right before he was arrested.

This brings to light a thought. I believe you understand this different than I do. Jesus has said that if this world was His kingdom then His servants would fight. This world is not His kingdom so His servants should not have fought at all. I think I understand that part but the part I do not understand is the part of Satan. Is Satan a spirit or entity? Do you recall that Satan entered Judas and then Judas betrayed Jesus?

Matthew_16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.

The reason I ask is that I understood this as to mean that Jesus was addressing Satan and not Peter. Yes he turned and addressed Peter but was Jesus addressing Peter or Satan? When people sin they are not in the perfect will of God during that act of sin. When Peter cut the ear was he in the act of sin? And if he were in the very act of sin then Satan had entered his mind and body.

I believe Peter was not in the will of God as he brought harm to another person and that action was instigated by Satan. Could it have been that Jesus was ordering Satan through Peter to get away from this matter? Very interesting thought you have brought to the front.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Rex282

May I ask you a question? Do you believe Jesus died on the cross for your sins and resurrected on the third day? Do you also believe that the bible is the inspired, ineffable, infallible word of God?

If so, pot meet kettle. If that's the case, zardust is speaking of you just as much as Seede.

I don’t believe your statement question nor I have ever written I believe anything like your statement.I have never wrote on ATS I believe in any religion-religious doctrine…… because I don’t.

As usual you have extrapolated from what someone said (Zardust)and infused it with your own religious rhetoric agenda. Zardust said nothing of things you stated he did(forgiveness of sin, resurrected on 3rd day,the bible’s infallibility) yet you used his words to try and indict me on something I never did. It doesn’t matter you presented it as a "simple" question when in fact it was just your religious rhetoric accusation.That is one reason why I have no desire to participate in your or anyone else’s religious rhetoric games.

The fact is you believe(a lot) more than I believe(nothing) in Christianity yet you are calling me the pot.I have no interest in debating you nor anyone else about their religious beliefs and I have never done that nor will I ever do that here(or anywhere else) at ATS.

a reply to: Rex282

If by saying you never stated those things that means you do not believe them then thank you for answering.

I do notice something about you and your posts though, if someone says something you disagree with you automatically call it religion as if that's a free pass for you to disregard it. I have yet to see you post anything about what you personally believe, I've only ever seen yo challenge others beliefs if they do not align with your yet discussed beliefs. Not just this thread, but every thread I've seen you participate in.

Do you not state your beliefs for fear of them being called religion as you call everyone else's beliefs? I apologize if that's another assumption, that's only the vibe I get from seeing your tactics on these boards. You're all about calling other people's beliefs out but refuse to state your own. Not that that's a bad thing, I just find it odd.

I shudder thinking the world could very well of been a place where we sat around holding hands singing Kumbiyah. Oyyy. Cheers Eve for getting us kicked out of that Eden!

That is the most twisted thing I have ever read. You are true proof of religious brainwashing. People like you are why there is so much violence and suffering in the world. Congratulations.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
…………….
I do notice something about you and your posts though, if someone says something you disagree with you automatically call it religion as if that's a free pass for you to disregard it.

That is an assumption on your part.I don’t automatically do things. I don’t disregard a statement because it disagrees with my beliefs I disagree with statements because they are contrary to truth and is only religion(belief).

Disagreeing with a persons statement is not disparaging the person.Many(most) things people believe are not true especially religion-religion beliefs which none of them are true because beginning with a faulty premise(religion-religion beliefs) can never espouse truth.That is the crux of everything I write about religion-religion beliefs.Denying the ignorance of what is not true.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I have yet to see you post anything about what you personally believe, I've only ever seen yo challenge others beliefs if they do not align with your yet discussed beliefs. Not just this thread, but every thread I've seen you participate in.

What I personally believe is not the point of what I write at ATS.What I write has to do with denying ignorance of religion-religion .The fact is truth cannot be know by belief through faith.It is only a perception of observation.Even scientist know for a fact everything they believe(theories) is not 100% true, it is percentage of possibilities.

Religion is the inescapable dilemma mankind is in.It is impossible to know truth 100% by belief through faith(religion) because the amalgamation of all of a persons experiences form their belief in faith of their Belief System religion.A scientist perceiving is a ruling/judgement on the possibilities of facts through their observations.It is in effect religion but is not religion-religion.

I am not challenging anyone's right to their religion-religious belief I am stating religion-religion beliefs are by their nature false perceptions.All of mankind's(every human) nature is religious.It is the believers conduit of their perception of the world and their life.It is an amalgamation of beliefs that form a unique Belief System.These Belief Systems are believed because of a persons nature and character (the foundational meaning of the word name).

The core of many peoples BS is religion-religion.The majority of those people have as their core belief herd religion beliefs like Christianity,Islam etc etc.Others have personal “spiritual” beliefs many which have a foundation in the herd beliefs.Some(very few…atheist) have no religion-religion belief at all.However they do have a Belief System religion.

Any belief in any religion-religious system is religion-religion belief.A very small minority don’t have religion-religion as part of their Belief System religion.However that doesn’t mean what that minority doesn’t believe is true it just means they don’t believe what is NOT true(religion-religion).

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Do you not state your beliefs for fear of them being called religion as you call everyone else's beliefs? I apologize if that's another assumption, that's only the vibe I get from seeing your tactics on these boards. You're all about calling other people's beliefs out but refuse to state your own. Not that that's a bad thing, I just find it odd.

As I’ve stated many times… I don’t have religion-religion beliefs.I also don’t call people out on their beliefs as your accusation implies, I deny the ignorance of ALL religion- religious “beliefs” not the person.I am not “all about “ anything or in fear as your assumption implies.I don’t have agenda tactics to promote a religion-religion theory.

You asked your questions I’ve answered them to the best of my ability.I have no desire to get into a petty argument about BS religion or discuss it any further.My purpose for posting is to deny the ignorance and delusion of religion-religion not mount personal attacks and is why I very seldom enter into a personal dialogue with those that want to argue and propagate their religious theology.

a reply to: Rex282

Thank you for answering friend.

Though just to add one thing, I'm sure you have beliefs of your own correct? If beliefs are religion then wouldn't your own beliefs also be religious as your definition implies?

You don't have to answer if you don't want to. I appreciate you taking the time to answer my other questions.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Rex282

Thank you for answering friend.

Though just to add one thing, I'm sure you have beliefs of your own correct? If beliefs are religion then wouldn't your own beliefs also be religious as your definition implies?

You don't have to answer if you don't want to. I appreciate you taking the time to answer my other questions.

Religion-religion and religion-religious are my terminology and why I usually define the foundation each time I post something related to it so to clarify again …

Mans nature is religious which is to believe through faith their perception through their observations.

In the “macro” mankind- state all of mankind are religious.In the “micro” -personal state there are people that are religion-religious that have religion-religion beliefs in their Belief System and there are people that are NOT religion-religious and do NOT have a religion-religion beliefs in their Belief System.

In other words …in the macro state of humankind I am religious and have a personal Belief System religion just like everyone else because that is the natural state of mankind.In my micro-personal state I am non religion-religious and do not have religion-religion beliefs.I didn’t cause or create my state of being non religion-religious it is my name (nature and character) .

I apologize for the repetition and over statement however I am only attempting to be as clear as a possible.It is usually automatically assumed when someone states anything about a God they are religion-religious.

originally posted by: Seede
Directed to Rex
Rex, I apologize for being rude and do owe you this apology.
It seems as though in the past we have had many differences in our understanding of religion. One thing that may surprise you is that I believe that you are well read and very intelligent. You do not know my background and if you did it would probably shock you just as it may shock me to know your life.

When I joined the ATS discussions I admit that I had much to learn from others simply because I had my own beliefs that were not compatible with the majority of people. I was taught as a youngster by rabbinic Christianity and it is very difficult for me to understand other people. I have come to understand things that I never knew existed by reading people such as Warminlndy, Utnapisjtim, 3NL1GHT3N3D1 and a host of others here on ATS. Most of these people most certainly disagree with me and I with them but that was what this forum was designed to bring to everyone. I don't want you to think that I do not not appreciate and respect you because that is not true. I honestly believed that I was not trolling in my posts but was trying to stay on target and not derail the OP.

If I did anger you by a snide remark then I do apologize for that haughtiness that is my nature. LOL

My problem is not with you it is with your anger issues you have projected on me about ""your" religion.You will be very wrong in assuming I have anger or hate of you.I only hate what you do which is propagate your religion-religious beliefs as truth because they are not truth.

We have very different aspects of the ATS religious forums.I am not here to debate or ridicule anyone for their religion-religion beliefs I only deny the ignorance of those beliefs especially those of the many sects of Christianity.

I am not seeking nor can I (or anyone) else prove or teach truth and it certainly cannot be known by belief through faith in a Belief System religion.The only reasonable thing to do is a form of the Socratic method of elenchus which is to expose the fallacy of those beliefs.My statements are never the disparagement of anyone's character they are only the denial of their false beliefs of religion-religion.