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.

 

Paul: Rome's version of the Trojan Horse

page: 12
48
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


You assume you are on the higher ground, but you're not. Your contradictions prove this.

You say pagan mysteries are bad, yet you hold onto a book which teaches them. You say Catholicism perverts Paul's words when they hold the same opinion and interpretation on them as you. You say Peter is Rome when Paul was the Roman. You say Peter is part of this worthless mystery yet neglect to remember that he approves of Paul's words. You say Peter was part of this group that distorted the truth, yet you forget he founded the church along with Paul and that his words were included in the bible, which you hold to be infallible. Where does it end with you?

How is Catholicism using Paul's words for different purposes when they follow the guidelines he set up to the tee? What makes you think Catholicism didn't build upon what Paul started?
edit on 17-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


Your knowledge is incomplete. Go back and study.




posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


You never did explain those contradictions, especially the one where you think Peter was the bad guy.

If Paul founded the church with Peter, then how could Peter be evil? If you think Peter twisted the message then why does he agree with what Paul said? If Peter was Rome, then why is he portrayed as one of the good guys in the bible? Could you maybe clear those up before ignoring them again?

Why reject Peter when the bible clearly says he was a true apostle of Jesus who was good enough to found his church? Weren't you defending him earlier in this thread?
edit on 17-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


You never did explain those contradictions, especially the one where you think Peter was the bad guy.

If Paul founded the church with Peter, then how could Peter be evil? If you think Peter twisted the message then why does he agree with what Paul said? If Peter was Rome, then why is he portrayed as one of the good guys in the bible? Could you maybe clear those up before ignoring them again?

Why reject Peter when the bible clearly says he was a true apostle of Jesus who was good enough to found his church? Weren't you defending him earlier in this thread?
edit on 17-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


Know the difference between Petros and Petra. Although I wrote this quite a while ago, this thread gives you some of the information.

Thread

You can also look at this thread: Thread



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


I look at it like they both (Peter and Paul) served a purpose. The church (not just the catholic church) has lied and worse has become a business, making money and building bigger businesses. They have not fed the sheep (we are starving) and in the end we should see (if Bible prophecy is correct) Peter coming to Christ. Will the next Pope be Peter?

The stories are significant in the grand scheme of things. They teach us and they also show us what to expect. According to my view, the destruction seems near.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


You're talking about the same guy right? Or are you talking about another Peter? Petra is the feminine form of Petros, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Petra:


A late borrowing from Ancient Greek πέτρα (petra, "stone, rock").


Source

Petros:


petro- (1)
before vowels petr-, word-forming element used from 19c., from comb. form of Greek petros "stone," petra "rock" (see petrous).


Source

Seems like they mean pretty much the same thing to me, except petra is feminine. Care to explain how they are different?
edit on 18-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


Remember what Jesus said about the last being first and the first being last? If Peter was the first Pope, then I'm sure the last pope will be named Peter as well, that's how "they" work. So if the last pope named Peter is supposed to be the antichrist, I see that as the first pope being one as well. Since I think Paul was Peter, that would mean Peter was a Roman, hence the last pope being named "Peter the Roman". It's too coincidental in my opinion.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Petros is a stone. Petra is a foundation. The stone can be moved. Peter is Petros.


Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


You're talking about the same guy right? Or are you talking about another Peter? Petra is the feminine form of Petros, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Petra:


A late borrowing from Ancient Greek πέτρα (petra, "stone, rock").


Source

Petros:


petro- (1)
before vowels petr-, word-forming element used from 19c., from comb. form of Greek petros "stone," petra "rock" (see petrous).


Source

Seems like they mean pretty much the same thing to me, except petra is feminine. Care to explain how they are different?
edit on 18-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Meaning, he will come back to Christ, is this right?



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


But aren't foundations made out of stone?


They still mean the same exact thing.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Meaning, he will come back to Christ, is this right?


That has yet to be determined. Peter must repent and God cannot force this decision. I think the stage is set for Peter to be forced to choose. It was not stated, but we do know how Peter was crucified. After examining the story o his crucifixion, it seems that he may be the Lord identified in Revelation 11. I previously thought this was Nimrod / Osiris, but Peter fits the picture as well.

Revelation 11

7 Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them. 8 Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified. 9 For three and a half days some from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. 10 The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth.

If the beast is Rome, then Peter is "Their Lord" mentioned above. I suppose this is a possibility. It's not Jesus. He was crucified in Jerusalem. The great city could very well be Rome.

I don't know. You ask a question that is left open in the Bible. Listen to this short sermon:



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


But aren't foundations made out of stone?


They still mean the same exact thing.


Google it. You can fish out the definition you like, but to know, you need to dig a bit and read some commentaries. As well, know that the twist on words is found in the Hebrew Matthew. This is likely the original source of the Greek.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Wow! You agree that Peter was the antichrist, as I stated earlier in this thread, yet you still hold onto what Paul wrote about! They founded the church together! Paul was a bigger part of the church than Peter, his 13 (unlucky) epistles prove that. Peter only has two.

So tell me, who had more influence over the churches doctrine, Peter or Paul?

Unless of course Peter was Paul and Peter is the one who wrote those other 13 epistles attributed to Paul. Your thinking is backward on this, seriously.

Why is Peter called petra? That's the feminine version of petros, Peter was a man. I have a theory on that. My theory is that since Peter founded the church (along with Paul) and the church is called the "Bride of Christ", that they stole the Bride's identity.

Christ's Father had to have a female counterpart, correct? Why wouldn't it? What about Mother Earth? Since petra means "stone" or "rock" and since the Earth is made of stone and rock, I think Peter/Paul, a.k.a. the church and Rome, stole the role of Mother Earth.

Is it only a coincidence that a Mother is never mentioned throughout the entire bible? It's always father/he/him, no mention of the Mother though.


edit on 18-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   


That has yet to be determined. Peter must repent and God cannot force this decision. I think the stage is set for Peter to be forced to choose. It was not stated, but we do know how Peter was crucified. After examining the story o his crucifixion, it seems that he may be the Lord identified in Revelation 11. I previously thought this was Nimrod / Osiris, but Peter fits the picture as well.
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


This above would make more sense in my opinion, rather than Osiris. I don't know though.... Osiris has somethingto do with it as well. I can't pin point it.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   


What about Mother Earth? Since petra means "stone" or "rock" and since the Earth is made of stone and rock, I think Peter/Paul stole the role of Mother Earth's role as mother.
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


I never thought of it like that. You could be on to something as well.


Putting our minds together is where its at. We need to really think this through because its the biggest puzzle... trying to figure out how it will all go down. lol I love this stuff!


edit on 18-2-2013 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 




Wow! You agree that Peter was the antichrist, as I stated earlier in this thread, yet you still hold onto what Paul wrote about! They founded the church together! Paul was a bigger part of the church than Peter, his 13 (unlucky) epistles prove that. Peter only has two.


Like I said, people see right through you as a liar when you try to twist what is said. Good luck with that in your life.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


How am I lying? You just said Peter was the antichrist! You mentioned his upside-down crucifixion, a sign of the antichrist.

What are you talking about me twisting words? Just because I have you backed into a corner and you don't know how to refute what I say doesn't mean I'm a liar, it just means you're wrong and refuse to see it.


How was Peter the antichrist and Paul not? They both agreed with each others words right? So how is one half of the church (Peter) evil, but the other half, who had MUCH more influence on the Church's doctrine (Paul), not evil? It doesn't make sense, and you KNOW IT! Which is why your replies have gotten progressively shorter and shorter and why you are on the defensive now, calling me a liar. How am I lying when I'm pointing out the holes in your theory that are most defnitely there?! Take your blinders off dude, it's right there at the tip of your tongue, but you refuse to say it!

What have I lied about? Please let me know, because I can't see where I did.
Me misinterpreting your words by accident doesn't mean I'm lying. I don't think I'm misinterpreting your words though.

To clear the confusion up: do you believe Peter was the antichrist? If not, then why mention his upside-down crucifixion? That's a sign of the antichrist you know.
edit on 19-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Meaning, he will come back to Christ, is this right?


That has yet to be determined. Peter must repent and God cannot force this decision. I think the stage is set for Peter to be forced to choose. It was not stated, but we do know how Peter was crucified. After examining the story o his crucifixion, it seems that he may be the Lord identified in Revelation 11. I previously thought this was Nimrod / Osiris, but Peter fits the picture as well.

Revelation 11

7 Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them. 8 Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified. 9 For three and a half days some from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. 10 The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth.

If the beast is Rome, then Peter is "Their Lord" mentioned above. I suppose this is a possibility. It's not Jesus. He was crucified in Jerusalem. The great city could very well be Rome.

I don't know. You ask a question that is left open in the Bible. Listen to this short sermon:



So you agree that Revelation is talking about things that have already happened? Funny, because I came to that conclusion a while ago.

If you think John was talking about Peter in that instance, then what makes you think he wasn't talking about Jesus and Mary in Revelation 12? That's the chapter that talks about a woman giving birth to a baby boy who was then devoured by the dragon. It's a clear reference to Jesus being turned into the beast in my opinion, though I'm sure you'll find a way to deny it.
edit on 19-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


How am I lying? You just said Peter was the antichrist! You mentioned his upside-down crucifixion, a sign of the antichrist.



What I said was that Peter MIGHT be a candidate for "THEIR LORD" mentioned in Revelation 11. Again, you stretch what I say into your own pretext. I was speculating on Revelation 11, not about the Antichrist. You are making that stretch, not me.

Peter was reported to be crucified upside down. If you had listened to the audio in the link I placed in the very same post, you would have had more context to what I was saying. Like I said, I am done with you. You are not honest with your words.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


What makes you think Peter is a "possibility" to be the antichrist? What did he do to mak you believe this possibility? Was it where he agreed with everything Paul said, or was it that he founded the church along with Paul?

You say it's a possibility Peter was "their lord" (the antichrist), right? Didn't Paul influence the bible and the church's doctrine more than Peter ever did? So why is Peter a possibility but not Paul? They founded the church TOGETHER, the same church that you claim "might" be Rome.

HOW IS PETER A POSSIBILITY BUT NOT HIS COHORT PAUL? It's a contradiction that you are REFUSING to address, meaning you are done thinking now because I have pointed out a huge flaw in your premise. Instead of facing that flaw and contemplating it, you tuck tail and run.

Why not prove that I am a liar instead of just saying it? Tell me what I'm lying about. I agree I over-dramatized your "possibility" (unintentionally), but that does not take away the fact that you are still contradicting yourself and refusing to address it.

How can you believe Peter was "possibly" the antichrist, but ignore Paul? He wrote the book on the church's doctrine, LITERALLY. He had more influence on the church's beliefs than Peter, yet you believe Peter is the church?! Why are you completely ignoring that fact?!



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 




What makes you think Peter is a "possibility" to be the antichrist? What did he do to mak you believe this possibility? Was it where he agreed with everything Paul said, or was it that he founded the church along with Paul?


I never used the world antichrist in reference to Peter. You did. Again, you are a deceptive person and I do not converse with people who have the intent of deception. Your game is finished with me. Go troll someone else.







 
48
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join