It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Robin Peter, Tupay Paul?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 10 2004 @ 01:48 PM
I have been hearing: Robbing Peter to pay Paul so often in the last year, I have been wondering about the origins of it. Curiously I input it into a search engine which resulted in many more references to it than I could expect to read before Jesus returns. But in searching, I found a few references that I will share with you dealing with Paul:

This site carries the title: "Doing the TWIST with Paul."
Interestingly, the author points out what many (count me in that number) already question. And that is, did Paul have authority from Jesus?

He uses the verses in 2 Peter, 3:15-16 to make his case.
(Not quoted here, but on his page if one is interested)
He questions if these might no be magical verses saying:

"Hey, be careful how you INTERPRET what Paul said." I wonder if the phrase, "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" originated from these "magical verses". Who knows."

Even as the idea of a Bible conspiracy dealing with Paul was not my intent, I have questioned why church leaders still hold Paul in such high esteem when they have called him a prankster and admitted he made some mistakes.

At any rate, I started in the conspiracy idea and came up with:

The author proclaims:

"Paul, who has become the leader of the Christian faith in the perspective of the early Gentile church, totally disregarded many of the doctrines inherent in Christ's teaching."

At this point, these offer up a great deal of information on the conspiracy by the church to exalt Paulian principle under the guise that God will understand what they are doing. Of course, this is the same argument used at the time of Jesus when the council considered His teaching and his fate.

There is much to discredit Paul:
First, we only have Paul's word, and the Churches assurance he was a true apostle.
Second, Paul made mistakes. The church admits it, but in the same vein tells us we must accept the entire Bible or none at all. How can we own one hand accept Paul's word unquestionably, when we know it is fallacy?
Third, Paul contends he argued with Peter. But church historians place Peter in the first century and Paul along about the third.

It seems then that 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' is a reference to this conspiracy in terms of 'misplacing trust.'

Is it just me, or are more people opeing up to the idea that the truth we seek is not in the church we attend?

(Info: Robin Peter and Tupay Paul are imaginary treasurers in the papacy of Pope Peter Paul Ahmen Joi. As far as I know they have nothing to do with the conspiracy here. )

Any thoughts, comments?


posted on May, 11 2004 @ 12:02 PM
In English 'to peter' is a verb, which basically means to steal from one to give to another. Kinda like Robin Hood. And I guess it's supposed to be written Robbin' Peter to pay Paul. Stealing Robin Hood style to pay a friend (Paul sounds very much like pal, hey paypal). Robin steals to pay Paul. Or Robin steals two paper(s). Or even Robin peter too, pay Paul. Or Muggin' Peter to pay Paul. There's a well of meanings here. Really interresting stuff can happen with phonetic spelling. You can say one thing and mean the oposite.

new topics

log in