| Cephas/the head/rock/Peter |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: ramona ® 03/03/2003, 09:19:14 Author Profile Mail author |
Good old Mr. Cephas, we read about him in the N.T. and Jesus calls him, the Rock of the Church. The Roman Catholic Church claims him as the first Pope. He is an interesting character, but strangely almost non-existent after Jesus death. It is Paul that seems to run the church. He is the one that authors the letters we can read in the N.T. Paul is the character that writes the letters that some churches use in their opposition to female priests. Paul is the character that effectively "damns" homosexuality, while Jesus says nary a word. Paul is the character that is credited for changing the law of circumcision in the wake of Jesus claim that "He comes not to change the law, not one jot or tittle." I do not know if the character Jesus was a real character, but I am willing to err on the side of caution. If Jesus did exist, his form of death (the hanging on the cross) is used when an enemy of the state. I would be more willing to believe that Rome was more concerned about a man able to summon the organization of people, than a heretic. I greatly doubt that Rome was much concerned with the jewish religion, but rather concerned with a man with the appearance of increasing power. Ah, but I'm just thinking off the cuff. Ramona |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
About your cuff, love Re: Cephas/the head/rock/Peter -- ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: jersey girl! ®
03/03/2003, 22:52:51
Author Profile Mail author
When you say that Jesus referred to Peter as "the Rock", my read of that particular scripture is different. I do not have my Bible in front of me at this writing however, the exchanges go something like this...
Jesus: Who do you say that I am?
Peter: You are the Son of God
Jesus: On this rock I will build my churchOkay, don't point out my errors in the dialogue, but what I'm saying is that in my interpretation...Peter isn't the rock, the concept that Jesus is the Son of God is the rock. IOW...the foundation of the Christian Church. I said it, it must be true!
Thus spake the fair and precious,
Victoria
;-)
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: NIV Re: About your cuff, love -- jersey girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/03/2003, 23:03:37
Author Profile Mail author
"18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
This is scripture upon which the Roman Catholic Church bases its claim that Peter is the first Pope.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
back up a few verses? Re: Re: NIV -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: jersey girl! ®
03/03/2003, 23:32:45
Author Profile Mail author
I'm admittedly too lazy to get my Bible. Could you back that diaolgue up a few verses? If not, I'll post it here tomorrow.
Vicki
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
A few back Re: back up a few verses? -- jersey girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: ramona ®
03/04/2003, 08:23:16
Author Profile Mail author
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am ?
16:16
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
16:17
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock (that would be Peter) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.St. Peter don't you call me, cuz I can't go. I owe my soul to the company store. What inspired St. Peter at the gates of heaven, if not the aforementioned verses? We are talking music Vicki. This is very serious.
Click on usingto pick the bible of your choice. This is one for your bookmark/favorites http://bible.crosswalk.com/ That way you don't need to have a physical bible present. It also have the advantage of multiple interpretations.
Ramona
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: verses Re: back up a few verses? -- jersey girl! Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/04/2003, 10:59:42
Author Profile Mail author
Modified by JAK at Tue, Mar 04, 2003, 12:03:31
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
a couple forward Re: Re: verses -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: ramona ®
03/04/2003, 12:07:21
Author Profile Mail author
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Sounds like a bossman to me.Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: consider three verses Re: a couple forward -- ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/04/2003, 12:20:15
Author Profile Mail author
Matthew 16:
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.
Multiple interpretations from the doctrine of Roman Catholicism through the Protestant Reformation. Reliability of interpretations open to skepticism.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: consider three verses Re: Re: consider three verses -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: ramona ®
03/04/2003, 12:55:53
Author Profile Mail author
Ramona
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: My irreverent reflection Re: Re: consider three verses -- ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/04/2003, 17:50:49
Author Profile Mail author
Vicki had previously said:
“Okay, don't point out my errors in the dialogue, but what I'm saying is that in my interpretation...Peter isn't the rock, the concept that Jesus is the Son of God is the rock. IOW...the foundation of the Christian Church. I said it, it must be true!”Of course, what she expressed was an interpretation. The interpretation that Peter is the rock is the Roman Catholic doctrine (read interpretation). It is a literalist reading, which, on other occasions, is the kind reading that Vicki would give.
In my post above, I included verse Matthew 16:20 to demonstrate that different readers of Bible scripts place contradictory interpretations on those scripts.
A literal reading of Matthew 16:20 was a charge that the disciples “tell no one that he (Jesus) was the Christ."
The disciples did just the opposite of what they were told to do. And, had they not done so, what would have been the fate of Christianity?
So, I threw up for “grabs” an interpretation of that verse 20.
Interpretations are unreliable. Biblical scripts are contradictory when taken at face meaning.
Regardless of literal vs. liberal interpretation, these three verses quoted by various Christians defy reliable conclusion about what was meant by them originally. Rarely is verse 20 quoted at all for obvious reasons.
JAK
Modified by JAK at Tue, Mar 04, 2003, 17:53:47
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Enter my good friend and Petrify. Re: Re: My irreverent reflection -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Another Bob ®
03/04/2003, 21:59:22
Author Profile Mail author
2. Peter = Petrus
3. Petrus being latin for... Rock.
And, in a move to astound, I prove that Jesus Christ and the cross were one and the same.
There is actually a cross in egyptian hyrogliphics. I cannot remember the precise translation for the cross, but it translates to roughly jesus (y'know how these translations can be, see peter above.) which in turn translates to saviour.
My my my what a coinkidink...
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: a couple forward Re: a couple forward -- ramona Top of thread Archive
Posted by: bosquero ®
03/05/2003, 10:20:17
Author Profile Mail author
The "keys of the kingdom" represented the beginnings of a non-levitical priesthood--the presbyteriat (eldership) that would replace the hieronymos (Greek for cohanim) who would cease to function with the destruction of the temple. "Priest" derives from "presbyteros," or elder. The word "cohen" did not make it into Christianity, and survives among Jews only as a family name (but one with apparent DNA markers).
I'm not sure what Jesus meant when he changed Peter's name. I suspect that the text is not genuine, but developed after Peter (not James--or Paul) was long recognized as the preeminent authority in the church. That is not to say that Jesus didn't change his name--that much is certainly genuine.
--Bosquero
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: a couple forward Re: Re: a couple forward -- bosquero Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Another Bob ®
03/11/2003, 10:30:31
Author Profile Mail author
This is proven in my knowledge of the new testament by the particular images associated to Jesus Christ. A very good example is the Eucarist.The whole eucarist is used to create the link between Jesus and the Pagan/Egyptian tradition of the Corn God (Read 'the Golden Bough' for more than enough info on the exact nature of the corn god.)
What is important to realise about the corn gods though is that the basis of the corn god myth is REBIRTH. For example in pagan mythology the corn god, in this case referred to as Cuernuos, the horned god,lives for only 1 year. Every year on the winter solstice a ritual feast was held to celebrate his death and rebirth during which it was believed that The Horned God was eaten by the Earth Mother who then, infused with his spirit, gave birth to him.
This belief itself was built upon the ancient egyptian worship of Osiris.Osiris was believed to have been killed by his brother(I forget his name as Egyptology is not my strong point) with his body parts being scattered across the globe. It was his sister/wife Isis's quest to search the globe, retrieving his various body parts thereby giving him a proper burial during which he was reborn as the King of the Dead, thus proving the immortality of the 'soul'
The references are impossible to miss.Mary is 'infused' with the spirit of god, much the same as the Earth Mother and thus the immaculate conception. Jesus is born within days of the winter solstice. His death and subsequent rebirth are taken as proof of the immortality of the 'soul' and he is heralded as king of this new kingdom.This is the kingdom referred to by the "keys of the kingdom".
All this certainly cannot have been what actually occured some supposed 2000 years ago.I personally don't believe enough to believe we were revisited by an ancient egyptian god in order to renew our faith in the divine. Far easier to believe a concerted guiding of the images into a particular form of philosophy by those that came afterwards.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: a couple forward Re: Re: a couple forward -- Another Bob Top of thread Archive
Posted by: bosquero ®
03/12/2003, 11:56:41
Author Profile Mail author
Bible to indicate when Jesus was born, or to suggest that his mother be worshiped. Then we have to recognize that
the text itself is in apparent disagreement even on such a seemingly fundamental doctrine as the virgin birth--the
author of Hebrews writes as though he were ignorant of such a doctrine when he traces Jesus’ lineage to David.
There is little if anything in the NT text to suggest that the eucharist has pagan ties--it is clearly an enactment
of the Passover seder given in the form of a farewell address by Jesus. That is, it is celebrated on this occasion not
so much in remembrance of the exodus as in remembrance of the last meal they will eat with the Messiah and of the
purpose of his life. I find it incredible that Jesus would draw on pagan sources to define his calling. Every claim he
made drew on Jewish sources, which by his time had managed to divorce the Jewish religious tradition from the
pagan beginnings of Near Eastern religion.
Certainly the success of Christianity involved its merging with pagan religion, but this process was still in its
earliest stages at the closing of the canon, and had little or nothing to do with the doctrine of Jesus and John the
Baptist. You will recall that the Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife, whereas the Pharisees did. When Jesus
went about refuting the Sadduccees’ position did he draw on pagan sources? That would have been unthinkable, and
of course there was no need. Jesus only had to point out that the living God was the god of the living, of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, who hence, are alive. There were enough vestiges of a Hebrew belief in a resurrection for the
Pharisees and Jesus to draw upon when confronting the Sadducees’ skepticism.
The underlying problem was that monotheism could not triumph as long as the possibility of an afterlife was
equated with polytheism--as long as immortals were equated with gods. With the Pharisaic revolution, the
resurrection was resurrected without its polytheistic trappings and, I maintain, without recourse to non-biblical
religion. --Bosquero
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: a couple forward Re: Re: a couple forward -- bosquero Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Another Bob ®
03/13/2003, 07:37:30
Author Profile Mail author
The myth of the corn god is a touch older than the pagans.The corn god was seen as symbolic of the growth of corn with it's yearly birth in the sowing of the seeds, and subsequent death in the harvest.What's more, the corn god has been attributed, since at the very least the worship of Osiris in egypt, as the source of the grains that formed the core of most agriculture, wheat and corn, the fruit baring vines and the making of alchohol, be it wine or beer.The use in the eucarist of both bread and wine to symbolise the body and blood of christ is too close to the general view of the corn god.
For sure, the origin could be through the passover rite, need I point out it originated in Egypt and Moses WAS taught by the Egyptian priests.
What cannot be ignored is the continuation of the corn god myth. It exists in more than simply the eucarist and seems to have guided a large portion of how Christ is portrayed to the great un-washed. Being a member (a religious pleb through and through) and only vaguely interested in Christian imagery through mythology and then only as imagery, I can only comment on this portion. I'm not going to even try and repeat 'Sadducees'(Strangely thinking of Bacchus, the corn god of the greeks.) or 'Pharisees' in polite conversation. As such, I don't want it believed that anything I say on the matter is law, even unto myself.
I do however think that how a religion is portrayed is perhaps important enough to merit discussion.That Christ is, as of the moment, viewed as some sort of mythic figure is certain. What's more, due to the attempted indoctrination of yours truly, I've been inflicted with a large amount of religious dogma. Too often have I heard talk of the 'kingdom of heaven' and too often of 'Jesus Christ the key.' These are not new images with a pedigree stretching far beyond human history.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page