sighhswolf

In another thread there was some discussion of the role of Satan in the church, and some possible
variations that might reveal some interesting situations, and may even shed light on a major lie.

I was interested in this particular question and decided to take a brief look at the early church of Rome and it's history regarding some of it's less known clandestine history.
16:15
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.

Peter without hesitation names Jesus as the "son of the living god".
And for that acknowledgement, he is blessed and is to be the "rock" upon which the church of christ will be built.

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 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.
These verses are very clear as to the role of Peter within the closed group of the disciples
and establishes him as the spokesman and leader of the group.

But....now the entire tone in these verses changes drastically.
Jesus specifically tells his disciples to
keep the secret of his alledged "divinity".

16:20
Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Now the explanation for this bit of deception is that is was not in the best interests of those gathered there to speak aloud the claim of Jesus being the son of god at that particular juncture in time, as it would have jeopardized the divine plan.
It appears to me that this is an "unspoken lie"
to withhold information that you have knowledge of is a lie the same as telling a falsehood.

But he continues to speak to them about his preplanned sacrifice to come.

16:21
From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Now Peter after being praised by his mentor just a few verses back, does not want these things to be realized, and says so.

16:22
Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

And here it becomes interesting because Jesus without hesitation calls Peter, the rock upon which he will build his church "Satan".

16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Now I have spoken to a few christians that have stated that the above verse was not a personal rebuke of Peter, but a generalized statement of the lack of cooperation that Peter had shown in the divine scheme of what was to come.

But is a generalized statement what it was intended to be when a person is identified by name...."but he turned and said unto PETER ".
There they stood face to face and the leader has just called his number one man "Satan".
It is clear that Jesus has addressed Peter directly as "Satan".

Ah, but could it be that Jesus has recognized the influence of Satan on one of his chosen?
It could be I suppose, but it takes some imagination to get to that little theory doesnt it?
Why did Jesus not say "Satan get thee out of my disciple Peter?"


Considering the catholic church and it's role historically in the deaths of many, torture of many, deceptive practices, forced conversions, and the aquisition of great wealth and political power, not to mention the events that are rocking the catholic church presently, it would appear that maybe jesus was correct when he called Peter "Satan".

In the CE, there is a long and drawn out section on St. Peter and his role in the birth of the church curiously the verses from above naming Peter as the rock onto which the church will be built is quoted.

The following is excerpted from the CE.:
"Into the Roman list of bishops dating from the second century, there was introduced in the third century (as we learn from Eusebius and the "Chronograph of 354") the notice of a twenty-five years' pontificate for St. Peter, but we are unable to trace its origin.
Duchesne has shown that the dates in the "Chronograph" were inserted in a list of the popes which contains only their names and the duration of their pontificates, and then, on the chronological supposition that the year of Christ's death was 29, the year 30 was inserted as the beginning of Peter's pontificate, and his death referred to 55, on the basis of the twenty-five years' pontificate."
This candid information about the life and times of St. Peter documents what is known about his part in the establishment of the early church in Rome.

What is interesting is that the verse where Jesus
refers to Peter as "Satan" is not found in the CE's historical review of Peter, although the historical setting and the entire discussion where Jesus names Peter as the rock on which his church will be built is prominent.

Mark Twain commented that if Jesus were alive today, one thing he would not be is a "christian".
Maybe the church, christianity in total, and all it's followers throughout history have been deceived, and they have actually been working for Satan the whole time..........the first Pope, the first head of the church of Rome, just happened to be called "Satan" by the icon of it's faith.
Curious............
Oh and by the way the CE says that Rome had been known as "Babylon" and referred to as such in many historical documents.

Of course this is speculation and is not up to debate, but it is rather curious.
It would indicate that there have been many, many lies built into the bedrock of the early church and christianity in general.
I realize though that this post will not set well
with the theists who read it, but as with all biblical interpretations, everyone has an opinion.
Mine is that anything established on a lie is not something I wish to be part of.

And I now better understand the willingness of the catholic clergy to ignore certain behaviors and "withhold"
information just as their icon did.
Now the Catholics are not any different than any of the rest of the organized religions, but they are the oldest and the "rock".
Wolf

Amos

Hi Wolf, I will explain and take you through it step by step. Note that I will be leaning on the other interpretation in which the 12 apostels are personified motivational forces within the mind of one man. Hence the flip flop with Peter who was the personification of Faith that must be annihilated to arrive at understanding.

They are the Rock indeed and if you ever go to Paris make sure to ascend the steps that lead to the entrance of the Sacre Coure. There you will see hundreds (?) of people pissing against the Church while the priest may be found handing out apologies for the ignorance of the Christians who do this and simultaneously try to convert them.

[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Starboy

What a great idea. Next time I am there I will have to join them. Thanks for the tip!

Starboy

Amos

For sure. They know you are coming and the place is just like pilgrim destination for the ignorant.

sighhswolf

Amos...
My friend you never cease to amaze me.
I knew if my question was to be answered you would be the one.....
Thank you Amos for your insight, your interpretations are always extraordinary.
Even as a non-believer I find certain areas of
religious history especially the motivation of mystics to be interesting.
Wolf

Starboy

Maybe it can become a pilgrim destination for the a-thiests. How often to you get to piss on a christian shrine.

Starboy

Amos

Thank you for providing the fundamentals for the argument. For me it is so easy to defend but a lot of background is needed to follow the argument.

No, I do not claim that Catholics are superior but only claim that the religion is much superior.