peter petrous (sacrilege)

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.

Advertisements
2 comments
  1. Petrus is latin for stone, over this stone I’ll build my church … it’s about the solidity but also a mason/craftman metaphor, the “angular” stone in a building, the first base upon which you’d arise your structure.

    Pedro la piedra, in spanish. Peter the stone …yeah it makes much more sense in romantic tongues,

    • lenybob said:

      yeah there is a special term for that kind of stone in english; ‘cornerstone’. though stone by itself has no designation.

      i was thinking it was an ‘earth’ metaphor comment as it was based in English on rock, thus a mother earth metaphor. which has metaphorical relation to the concept of being reborn. “only through earth/rock would you get reborn again” it seemed like a really weak but deliberate recognition of the significance of action and how it reacts to impact one’s family. it also seems to play on another theme i remember from somewhere where a god breathes life into earthenware dolls to make humans. and considering they took the Zoroastrian angel thing, and some greek inspiration, i wouldn’t be surprised if they had god (or representative) create new ‘heavenly’ forms for the soul to inhabit post mortem. and use the gate symbol again as a womb metaphor. granted for this to be there would need to be a fence/wall ‘around’ the gate making the gate relevant, but it would be a really intricate symbol. with Death literally producing your next form, in another sense representing one’s children.

      the other thing i noticed was another thing i heard was an old misconception of human bodies flesh and bone as rather clay and stone. so the removal of flesh revealing bone was in a sense petrification- a return to stone. which makes more depth for the peter character as Death- now often represented as a skeleton with a sythe. another form of styx’ boatman charon. hmm, as it seems i’m being creative, i could make the final-passage-keeper want various moral coiniage in it’s own ironic mortal toil. needing new clay organs to stay alive, and the coins of deed by hand of dead to buy the capacity to be. one dead coin for the passage of each body. paying a boatman, a gate keeper, as a guide into the beyond or extension beyond one’s reach. perhaps a path-finder/guide would be an acceptable replacement.
      … back to topic…

      corner stone isn’t the foundation though. merely a marker relative to which the building is set. peter being a cornerstone would be jesus abdicating the faith. cause it is saying that the church would be constructed at peter’s discretion, not jesus’ even with jesus as the foundation. peter being the foundation with jesus as the cornerstone, so peter only manifested what jesus decreed, would make sense but foundation is not often a single stone, and saying peter was cobbled together would make him sound incredulous though remarkable.cobbling together would make peter a try-hard, thus dishonest as truth is thought of as easy.

      that would/does explain why that catholic guy i’m listening to was trying to take down the protestant premise that the pope (new peters) are considered higher than jesus. it is their relative capacity to dictate. i’m still not sure how one would get around being seccond or third person speakers. quakers by having no clergy seem to be the only way around having intermediaries. not sure how any pastor could be not at least ‘equally guilty’ to the pope on grounds of heretical usurping the name of jesus for personal empowerment. “your bishop preside in the place of god”, bishop or pastor/preacher, *shrugs* at least they were honest to say “in the place of” rather than “as placed by”. weird though that they claim the opposite of what they explicitly state. ‘in place of’ means that god isn’t there but rather some guy who usurped/secceeded the place/title. weird double think.

      so it goes Jesus -> Apostles -> biblical authors -> various biblical authorities including papacy and the various random protestant churches which all presume. the papacy are catholicly legitimized as true canon because they have direct apostle confirmation, which is presumed to be carried down the line of succession allong side the intense and fairly consistent biblical scholarship. so there is an authority through disamigation/ambiguity, by historical legitimacy through entitled seccession.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: