The blog to end all blogs. Reviews and comments about all and everything. This blog is NOT affiliated with YouTube, Wikipedia, Copilot Designer or any commercial vendor! Links don´t imply endorsement. All photos are credit Wikipedia. Many posts and comments are ironic. The blogger is not responsible for comments made by others. The languages used are English and Swedish. Content warning: Essentially everything.
Saturday, August 26, 2023
Batshit crazy
Or perhaps catshit crazy? Why do people believe in stuff like this? It´s just a more exotic form of atheism. If even that...
As long as you sport 1) long hair 2) spectacles 3) a handlebar 'stache...you're qualified to speak out on 'Occult' matters...though probably won't get so far as Aleister Crowley and start his own religion! Sort of why Jesus instructed the disciples not to reveal he was the Christ. Simon Peter became the *foundation* as he saw Christ with the aid of the Spirit, not by flesh and blood. Telling someone does nothing, maybe even causes distortions. One must see/find it for oneself. Major flaw in religion!
After reading the article of Rev. Jack Mahoney SJ, posted in 'From Jesus to drag queen hour' on the Sermon on the Mount, I purchased his collection of essays, Glimpses of the Gospels. I find it a calm and reassuring exploration, without bias, of the traditions therein. Much like a grandfatherly storytelling...
That's actually an interesting point about Peter. Never thought about it! It was the Spirit who told him who Jesus was, not something "material" Jesus did down here. Also the Transfiguration!
Matthew 16:13-20 is usually taken as the 'keys to the Kingdom' moment but is also about seeing; ending with the Messianic secret: tell no one I am the Christ...why? So as not to confuse him with the political revolutionary Israel expected? Or to avoid being swamped by crowds of people wherever he went? Or to preserve his *true identity* until the final hour? And how is it none of the other disciples see him as Peter did? Or is the whole story rewritten in the 2nd century to fit the emerging narrative? I think you're on to something, as to the revelation. It is uncommon, to actually "see" rather than believe...
My guess is that the story must have been changed to promote Peter´s position, since Peter isn´t Numero Uno in the rest of the Gospels (or the rest of the NT), except once in Paul, where it says that Jesus showed himself first to Peter after the resurrection, but Paul still believes he can rebuke him! And in the Gospels, it´s of course Mary Magdalene who sees Jesus first...
There must have been some kind of secret teachings in early Christianity. The parables of Jesus to the multitude are explicitly said to be crafted in such a way that they won´t be understood. The Messianic secret. The secret of the Transfiguration. And what did Jesus teach the disciples during the 40 days between the resurrection and the ascension? And then there´s Paul, who said he wasn´t allowed to reveal what God had told him in the third heaven. And later, Ignatius said he had similar secrets. Even later, there´s Clement of Alexandria and his secret gospels...
One of the benefits of visiting your blog is the encounter with ideas that otherwise would be passed over. Now, I recall Clement of Alexandria, the Neo-Platonists, the Library at Alexandria (the loss of which is a serious catastrophe!) and so off to Wiki and perhaps grab a copy of the Protrepticus, if any translations exist, and possibly the Enneads of Plotinus! Peter is an interesting character to say the least. Probably illiterate as a fisherman, quick to jump to Jesus' defense with the sword, and later pretends he never heard of Jesus. Aha! Even eBay has The Exhortation to the Heathen.
Thank you! There is an intriguing theory (by Christian theologian Martin Hengel) that some fishermen may have been literate, since fishing was a commercialized business. But presumably that would mean that Peter had to be part of the management of the fishing firm. Since Galilee was part-Gentile, the lingua franca of the area would have been Greek. And the epistles of Peter are of course written in Greek...
But that´s just a tantalizing possibility, like the idea that Jesus himself spoke Greek, etc.
I think Hengel may be correct! And Peter as *proprietor* or *General Manager* of The Galilean Fishing Co., LLC sounds like a Saturday Night Live skit! "Since Roman coinage was scarce *fishes* were used to trade with. How much for that Toga? Oh, two fish...how much for those sandals? That'll cost you a fish of my choice. And that skein of wine?" Of course there's always: Jesus and Peter walk unto a run down Judean Tavern after a long trek across Galilee. The swarthy, bearded innkeeper looks up from washing the pottery ware and says, "What is this, some kinda Joke?" I remember reading an article about how the Sea of Galilee had somewhat evaporated from drought, revealing a wider shoreline, whereupon a sailing craft was discovered that was from the time of, you guessed it!
As long as you sport 1) long hair 2) spectacles 3) a handlebar 'stache...you're qualified to speak out on 'Occult' matters...though probably won't get so far as Aleister Crowley and start his own religion!
ReplyDeleteSort of why Jesus instructed the disciples not to reveal he was the Christ. Simon Peter became the *foundation* as he saw Christ with the aid of the Spirit, not by flesh and blood. Telling someone does nothing, maybe even causes distortions. One must see/find it for oneself. Major flaw in religion!
After reading the article of Rev. Jack Mahoney SJ, posted in 'From Jesus to drag queen hour' on the Sermon on the Mount, I purchased his collection of essays, Glimpses of the Gospels. I find it a calm and reassuring exploration, without bias, of the traditions therein. Much like a grandfatherly storytelling...
ReplyDeleteStyxhexenhammer666 probably did "see" something, but what? The chaos above as the chaos below? Very turbulent astral waters!
ReplyDeleteThat's actually an interesting point about Peter. Never thought about it! It was the Spirit who told him who Jesus was, not something "material" Jesus did down here. Also the Transfiguration!
ReplyDeleteCould it have consequences for Christology if only the human side of the God-Man is visible without special revelation?
ReplyDeleteMatthew 16:13-20 is usually taken as the 'keys to the Kingdom' moment but is also about seeing; ending with the Messianic secret: tell no one I am the Christ...why? So as not to confuse him with the political revolutionary Israel expected? Or to avoid being swamped by crowds of people wherever he went? Or to preserve his *true identity* until the final hour? And how is it none of the other disciples see him as Peter did? Or is the whole story rewritten in the 2nd century to fit the emerging narrative? I think you're on to something, as to the revelation. It is uncommon, to actually "see" rather than believe...
ReplyDeleteMy guess is that the story must have been changed to promote Peter´s position, since Peter isn´t Numero Uno in the rest of the Gospels (or the rest of the NT), except once in Paul, where it says that Jesus showed himself first to Peter after the resurrection, but Paul still believes he can rebuke him! And in the Gospels, it´s of course Mary Magdalene who sees Jesus first...
ReplyDeleteThere must have been some kind of secret teachings in early Christianity. The parables of Jesus to the multitude are explicitly said to be crafted in such a way that they won´t be understood. The Messianic secret. The secret of the Transfiguration. And what did Jesus teach the disciples during the 40 days between the resurrection and the ascension? And then there´s Paul, who said he wasn´t allowed to reveal what God had told him in the third heaven. And later, Ignatius said he had similar secrets. Even later, there´s Clement of Alexandria and his secret gospels...
One of the benefits of visiting your blog is the encounter with ideas that otherwise would be passed over. Now, I recall Clement of Alexandria, the Neo-Platonists, the Library at Alexandria (the loss of which is a serious catastrophe!) and so off to Wiki and perhaps grab a copy of the Protrepticus, if any translations exist, and possibly the Enneads of Plotinus!
DeletePeter is an interesting character to say the least. Probably illiterate as a fisherman, quick to jump to Jesus' defense with the sword, and later pretends he never heard of Jesus.
Aha! Even eBay has The Exhortation to the Heathen.
Thank you! There is an intriguing theory (by Christian theologian Martin Hengel) that some fishermen may have been literate, since fishing was a commercialized business. But presumably that would mean that Peter had to be part of the management of the fishing firm. Since Galilee was part-Gentile, the lingua franca of the area would have been Greek. And the epistles of Peter are of course written in Greek...
ReplyDeleteBut that´s just a tantalizing possibility, like the idea that Jesus himself spoke Greek, etc.
https://ashtarbookblog.blogspot.com/2018/08/jesus-hellenized-jew.html
I think Hengel may be correct! And Peter as *proprietor* or *General Manager* of The Galilean Fishing Co., LLC sounds like a Saturday Night Live skit! "Since Roman coinage was scarce *fishes* were used to trade with. How much for that Toga? Oh, two fish...how much for those sandals? That'll cost you a fish of my choice. And that skein of wine?" Of course there's always: Jesus and Peter walk unto a run down Judean Tavern after a long trek across Galilee. The swarthy, bearded innkeeper looks up from washing the pottery ware and says,
Delete"What is this, some kinda Joke?"
I remember reading an article about how the Sea of Galilee had somewhat evaporated from drought, revealing a wider shoreline, whereupon a sailing craft was discovered that was from the time of, you guessed it!
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-02-26-mn-54-story.html
https://www.postbulletin.com/lifestyle/discovery-of-2-000-year-old-boat-probably-a-miracle
Fish on Friday!
ReplyDelete