Chili

So what do you think "inspired" means.

Paul was the Lord God in person and whatever he said as Lord is an Infallible statement. Paul was omniscient, why not, just as Jesus was when he became Christ because they, Jesus and Paul shared the same Peter . . . which is a promise made by Jesus when he called the insight of Peter the rock upon which he would built his church. Hence Peter and Paul are the first Pope and not Popes in the plural.

Visions are for dummies in the same way that glossolalia is for dummies.

Chili

So is there something wrong with providing step 2 for the mythical interpretation? The math is there is it not?

And please don't be offended by visions and glossolalia being for dummies because they are the first and least of the spiritual gifts. They are like a baby present from God or a shower present if there is no royal banquet.

Thomas II

:huh: :huh: :huh:

Chili

There is nothing to be confused about. The math is there, it adds up (and they have had peter pulling parties ever since).

And I suppose, you know my old argument that Peter was there on that first fishing trip, along with Nathanael and Thomas, when Peter could catch nothing all night until dawn when Jesus told him to cast his net on the other side of the boat where the fish would be large and easy to catch.

And what do know? Peter put on his cloak of faith and hauled in big fish that they 'landed' and have been feasting on ever since. Hence, the Epistles are next and are written by the same mind that wrote the Gospels.

Thomas II

"peter pulling parties..."? What?

Thomas II

Paul was the Lord God in person?:huh:
Whatever he said as Lord was an INFALLIBLE statement?
Jesus and Paul shared the same Peter...:huh:
Peter and Paul are the the first Pope and not Popes in the plural.
Etc...

Chili,if you don't explain what you mean you can't expect people to understand you...

Chili

Sorry, just another word for alchemy where exctractions from faith are purified into truth to make it a living Church.

Chili

But I gave you the explanation in the first post and added the direction to look at it as step 2 in the mythical interpretation. I mean it is OK to say myth, myth, myth, but one is expected to tell the rest of the story to make myth believable.

It is based on the fact that each one of us is Lord God (and God) after realization with 'insight' being the only difference between God 'above' and us 'below.'

This insight was contained in the faith of Peter which became know as the rock of salvation. The faith of Peter was emptied at the cross with the blood and water and was the reason why he could catch no fish on that first post-resurrection fishing event. I mean there was no (rational) Judaism left in him or he would have caught something to sink his teeth in. This makes the Church a new religion that was inspired from the past but just presented in a NEW way. Hence Peter and Paul get together to become the first fruit of the vine whereupon the Church was built.

Infallible is a necessary condition after enlightenment.

Remember that Peter was insight and Paul was a enlightened ex Jew who went through the same conversion experience that Joseph went through under the name of Jesus. Hence they have the same Peter.

So Peter and Paul are one 'going concern' with the 'insight called Peter' in the mind of Paul now catching large fish in the subconscious mind (the other side of the boat) from which he wrote the Epistles. The Church is clear on that and will always use Peter-and-Paul instead of just Peter or Paul.

Thomas II

That has no meaning whatsoever.

Thomas II

I'm sorry Chili,but this doesn't make any sense whatsoever...None of this is the Church's philosophy,which means that you are making this up...Otherwise give me a book reference for ANY of what you have been saying...