so i was watching a video about the authority of the catholic church and then something popped out at me.
peter came from petre and the alledgedly latin/arame petrous… and petrous looks/sounds an awful lot like petrified.
so biblically jesus giving his keys to peter aka death, was a very different passage from giving a human authority.
there is also another semantic curiousity further implying this. jesus gave peter a rock- not a stone. now before this i thought it was just a mistranslation by someone not fluent in english, but if the person knows a rock is an non-subject stone; a rock has never come in contact with human hands whereas stones have. what does that say about the relationship
in the present jargon, any sentient movement of the rock makes it a stone even if it isn’t shaped or broken in the process. so that means jesus wasn’t a person/human. but what if the implication was reversed and due to the level of awareness the meaning fell into one of the forgotten gaps?
what if stones were then considered active tools rather than passive objects? what if you had castle walls of rock- rather than stone? what if jesus was a person, who layed the ‘rock’ before “death”. remember that to ‘lay upon’ someone means to hit them.
what if jesus was in the passage literally stoning the harbinger of Death to death and golem (earth elemental). turning a character once feared into something within subjectable dominion. i mean people in general have a fear of death and would likely follow anyone who can exert such control that he can enslave a character not even in jail but to such servitude the evil becomes his own jailor. locked away in ‘heavens’ of his own making under the mere direction of the empowered hero. it is like saying “you don’t deserve to die, that would be a gift, instead you will be the gatekeeper” but in a highly manipulative manner to get teh guy to serve without any threat- instead it is treated as entitlement and trust.
what if jesus rather than representing redemption from sin, represented conquering existential uncertainties (a god of existential peace). from personal place in group, to rewards tangible and intangible for being ‘good’. and this was at a base level an extension of the old testament genocidal tendencies, place for self by reducing place for ‘others’.
it would fit with the concept of how hunters/gatherers and farmers interacted. which could be the ideological base for ‘othering’ migrant aliens as well as aliens in general- resource control- without which existential peace couldn’t come; you spend all this arduous time farming and a migrant or imigrant group come and eat your labor? no way.
and the othering emerges from the lack of obligation for recompense the ‘other’ would feel. for the notion of labor being put into crops would be nonsensical to a migrant person. and by saying there is this gatekeeping who will only let the good (meaning those who farm) into eternal rewards gives reasonable validation for choosing an otherwise disfavorable choice. it may be obvious a>b but if c is infinate or rediculously large a may be smaller than b&c combined. so including oneself with the favored ingroup/class may mean- well- salvation from a more pressing existential worry; through a abuse of a ‘fellow’ slave by a shared master.