Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Author Kenneth Humphreys seems to be an atheist. Nevertheless, he may be on the right track about many things. I will rad his site. Thanks for the reference.
The Author Kenneth Humphreys seems to be an atheist. Nevertheless, he may be on the right track about many things. I will read his site. Thanks for the reference.
I believe the writer could be correct. Ultimately politics play a big part in these issues and as I have said before the CC simply seized the opportunity and as they say the rest is history. That they made a sculpture of Peter that looked like Zeus is no big deal. They really had no point of reference. In any event Peter gained a lot of momentum and I often wonder if some scribe at some point did a bit of editing on the NT to make Peter look real good.
The name of Peter is mentioned much more than all other apostles. Peter walked on water like Jesus and even resurrected dead people. Poor Paul he would have been the logical choice, but he never knew Jesus.
And Marcion, one of the competing Christian groups was into something. I always liked his idea of getting rid of the OT.
Nope, they took an existing statue and claimed it was Peter. It was there before they made that claim and was ... Zeus/Jupiter.
Politicians will do anything for election.
I wandered if the prominence of Peter in the NT was edited in years later. We know alterations in the writings were common. But, Peter walked on water, resurrected the dead, and had Matthew 16: 18-19 on his side.
I don't think Zeus had the keys with him, so this one must be a newer one.
I wandered if the prominence of Peter in the NT was edited in years later. We know alterations in the writings were common. But, Peter walked on water, resurrected the dead, and had Matthew 16: 18-19 on his side.
I don't think Zeus had the keys with him, so this one must be a newer one.
Peter was prominent for a variety of reasons including lessons for us. He was humble and zealous, BUT had a fear of man, gave in to a separation occurring between Jews and Gentiles because of it and was reproved by Paul, denied Christ, and in general acted like many of us. His being found faithful by Christ is also an example for us, since if he could be, we can be. Ditto with Paul who originally persecuted and killed Christians and ... became one of the foremost. A lesson in us for not judging but trying to help everyone. James, Jesus' brother, did not believe in him until after his death and resurrection. So don't give up on family.These accounts were not there to elevate peter, Paul, James or any of them, rather for us to see that anyone can turn to God. Fallen man has sued Peter for self aggrandizement and as a lever to say "look we are Peter's successors". Great, what Church/ekklesia in the 1st cenbtury did Peter establish, preside over or is even mentioend as being in charge of?
That is a newer statue. The St Peter statue in the Basilica is an iron one and so many people have kissed the foot that the toes are worn off. Yuuuuuuch.
Peter was prominent for a variety of reasons including lessons for us. He was humble and zealous, BUT had a fear of man, gave in to a separation occurring between Jews and Gentiles because of it and was reproved by Paul, denied Christ, and in general acted like many of us. His being found faithful by Christ is also an example for us, since if he could be, we can be. Ditto with Paul who originally persecuted and killed Christians and ... became one of the foremost. A lesson in us for not judging but trying to help everyone. James, Jesus' brother, did not believe in him until after his death and resurrection. So don't give up on family.These accounts were not there to elevate peter, Paul, James or any of them, rather for us to see that anyone can turn to God. Fallen man has sued Peter for self aggrandizement and as a lever to say "look we are Peter's successors". Great, what Church/ekklesia in the 1st cenbtury did Peter establish, preside over or is even mentioend as being in charge of?
That is a newer statue. The St Peter statue in the Basilica is an iron one and so many people have kissed the foot that the toes are worn off. Yuuuuuuch.
So Peter got the keys for a reason. And as I said the CC ran away with Matthew 16: 18-19. It is what it is,
I believe the writer could be correct. Ultimately politics play a big part in these issues and as I have said before the CC simply seized the opportunity and as they say the rest is history. That they made a sculpture of Peter that looked like Zeus is no big deal. They really had no point of reference. In any event Peter gained a lot of momentum and I often wonder if some scribe at some point did a bit of editing on the NT to make Peter look real good.
The name of Peter is mentioned much more than all other apostles. Peter walked on water like Jesus and even resurrected dead people. Poor Paul he would have been the logical choice, but he never knew Jesus.
And Marcion, one of the competing Christian groups was into something. I always liked his idea of getting rid of the OT.
[quote=GoodToBeHome;32442902]No proof of Jesus being the son of God, either.
RESPONSE:
That's right. God had lots of sons. Jesus just had great PR after his death.
Even the Catholic Encyclopedia (on line) admits:
The title "son of God" is frequent in the Old Testament. ...... The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job 1:6; 2:1; Psalm 88:7; Wisdom 2:13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).
And the Catechism of the Catholic Church # 441 tells us that:
441 In the Old Testament, "son of God" is a title given to the angels, the Chosen People, the children of Israel, and their kings. [Cf. Dt 14:1; (LXX) 32:8; Job 1:6; Ex 4:22; Hos 2:1; 11:1; Jer 3:19; Sir 36:11; Wis 18:13; 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 82:6] It signifies an adoptive sonship that establishes a relationship of particular intimacy between God and his creature. When the promised Messiah-King is called "son of God", it does not necessarily imply that he was more than human, according to the literal meaning of these texts. Those who called Jesus "son of God", as the Messiah of Israel, perhaps meant nothing more than this. [Cf. 1 Chr 17:13; Ps 2:7; Mt 27:54; Lk 23:47]
And if you say the Our Father and address God as your Father, aren't you implying that you are his son ?
Now read the other side with an open heart and mind and draw conclusions. There are always two sides to everything. Or maybe you just want to read things that agree with the mind that you already made up?
Now read the other side with an open heart and mind and draw conclusions. There are always two sides to everything. Or maybe you just want to read things that agree with the mind that you already made up?
Seriously? Maybe you need to re-read or take the time to read my posts #1 and #3, before drawing conclusions! It's really sad when people jump to wrong conclusions about others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
?
