edoggsmooth

I am currently taking a class in the synoptic gospels at st. johns university in new york.

We were learning about Peter, how he was the first pope, how he forgived sins, more or less what a wonderful guy he was. Yet when I asked if Pope Peter was the same guy who denied Christ three times, my professor (who is a priest) quickly brushed over it and said, somewhat condecendingly, "Yes our church is founded by a traitor," and then moved on. I was left wondering how anyone could buy that. Peter sells out Jesus and then when Jesus is gone, he becomes the head human.

Anyone think this is like Bostonians selecting Bill Buckner to be GM of the sox?

-ed

Toto

For a completely different viewpoint, I highly recommend this book: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1578849519/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">The Legend of Saint Peter</a> by Arthur Drews, translated by Frank Zindler. Saint Peter has every indication of being a mythic figure related to Mithras.

Amos

Peter as first pope laid the foundation for the papacy and was never human. To "sell Jesus out" was the best thing that ever happened to him because Jesus was the imposter and needed to be crucified (God forbid Jesus should ever be worshipped). Peter was the ideal image of faith left stranded when doubt was removed (Peter is the other twin half of Thomas) and became the first Pope when he put on his cloak of faith and dove headfirst into the [celestial] sea, which is on the rights side of the boat where the fishing was good and easy to catch. The right side of the boat is of course the right side of the brain and so Peter was the first Pope by implication.

From the philosophic perspective you must see the crucifixion as a victory and the descend into the netherworld the key to the backdoor of the Church. Peter was not human because the word human does not belong in religious serpremacy.

davidH

Well, if you read on about Jesus after he rose again - things do start to become clearer.

Read John 21 v 15 - onwards

You will see that Jesus asks Peter 3 times whether he loves him.- Peter responds each time that he does love the Lord.

Note here, Peter denied Jesus 3 times and Jesus asks Peter 3 times if he loves him - coincidience?
I think not.
You will see that Peter was completely forgiven by Jesus for denying him. Jesus held nothing against Peter - all was completely forgiven and it was as if Peter had never denied Jesus.

Peter was a traitor forgiven. He had experienced first hand the forgiveness that Jesus gave - this should also show that no matter what you have done in the past as soon as you ask Jesus he forgives and he can and will do great things through u.


Here, I am assuming that it's a catholic teaching that you are getting. I've got one thing that I would be really interested seeing your prof answer.

You said your prof said that St Peter Please ask your prof how this could be the case - ask him surely only God can forgive sins;

Quote one or 2 of the following verses;

Luke 5 v 21 " The pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, "Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

If he says that the Pope and Priest are the only ones that you can go to and through them have your sins forgiven, then ask him why then did Jesus teach his disciples to pray saying,

Luke 11 v 2-4 (The Lord's prayer) ..."Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us...."

Cause surely from this verse you can see that Jesus never taught that you had to go to a priest and then you could be forgiven. Surely this verse teaches that you just have to ask God for forgiveness, where ever you are.

Then if he says that it's through the priest cause they mediate between you and God.
Then ask him about the curtain that tore from top to bottom in the temple (the curtain that separates the most holy place from people apart from the priests and even then only at certain times).
Ask him what the meaning of that was.

I'll explain it while I am here,

When Jesus died on the cross he made a way to God - no longer where the priests to mediate but anyone could approach God.
That was what the curtain tearing in two symbolised - the most Holy place had now become upon to the people of the world - that is why we can come into God's presence and ask forgiveness and get to know him - without having to go through priests that were cerimonally cleansed.

I think it would be worth asking your prof about this - but don't ask challengingly - ask out of interest incase you get into trouble or something!

Amos

But God can't forgive sins because God has nothing to do with sin. Sin is a human concept which is written upon our heart as if in stone. Without the law there can be no concept sin and so sin is mythology specific only. Of course there is natural law but that does not contain the concept sin. To be forgiven of sin is to be set free from the temporary conviction of sin intil redemption takes place and here only knowledge and understanding frees.

The concept sin was given to Moses as a fishing tool to snare our slavery to the senses. That is to say, it is the concept sin that must be the redeeming tool to set us free from our slavery to our senses.

not a theist

They're teaching this in a class on the synoptics at a university?

This is an interpretation of the gospels. This has nothing to do with scholarly issues relating to the synoptics.

Pantera

You're trying to establish Christian doctrine by using the Pharisees as your authority? Isn't that a little bizarre?

Amos

To clarify the above I should have said that the laws are written upon our hearts as if in stone to serve as the anvil whereupon sinful deeds clash like hamer blows to make the conviction.

The three days Jesus spend in hades (the netherworld or subconscious mind) were to remove the sins of his own netherworld that had been captive there for many generations. These would be the persistent sins of his forefathers such as the sins of the clan, nation and tribe. Thes are called Mephis in Zamjatin's "WE."

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Peter Kirby

I showed up for a class on the gospels at the University of California, Irvine. On the first day I discovered that professor taught based on the premise that the gospels were true. Not interested in hearing sermons, I dropped the class. I took up a class on the comparative study of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The professor there was religiously neutral, and I enjoyed that class.

best,
Peter Kirby

edoggsmooth

The class actually was taught in two parts.

My original professor was a great guy, Dr. Mark Kiley, who taught the class on the premise that the gospels were documents, not necessarily truth. We looked at them from a purely scientific approach and I learned a lot and he was open to any questions. I'm pretty sure he was a believer, but you couldn't tell from the total objectivity he taught with.

Then Prof. Kiley fell "ill" (I have a sneaking suspicion that something underhanded happened, and he was run out of town.) They replaced him with a priest who, although does not come off as a prototypical priest, is pretty bullheaded about the gospels. Everytime I ask a question in class, he constantly interrups me, as to finish my sentence for me. He also pushes his views on us, in a subtle way. Everytime i ask a question that is in contrast to tradition, he backs up and finds away to link it to either a) faith or b) the Holy Spirit. His favorite is to say that each gospel has two authors : one of the evangelists (matt, mark, luke, john) AND the holy spirit. Sounds pretty dead-end to me.

Anyways, just generally venting about this guy.

Thanks for listening.
-ed