.

Dear david f., George & One Under God,

.

Given the psychiatric case history of Saul of Tarsica, it is understandable that despite the fact that he was by far the principal conceptor and promoter of Christianity, having written 94% of the New Testament and undertaken most of the evangelical work with the help of his assistant, Luke, the Catholic church nevertheless preferred to adopt Simon Peter, the fisherman, as its head, not Saul.

But Peter was not exactly the perfect model to serve as the official head of the Church, either. In Matthew 14:31, he is rebuked by Jesus : "O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?"

And all four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, tell the story of Peter's three denials of Jesus. The Gospel of Matthew goes even further and accuses Peter of having denied Jesus "in front of everyone", thus making a public witness - considered the ultimate form of betrayal because Jesus had forewarned: "whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven".

Also, whereas there is only one reference in the whole of the New Testament of Jesus having said: "thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18 KJV), there are two other references which designate Jesus as the foundation of the Church : "Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Ephesians 2:20 KJV) and : "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:11 KJV).

There is also a fourth reference: "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house … acceptable to God by Jesus Christ … Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded." (1 Peter 2:5-6 KJV)

There is even a fifth reference: "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Revelation 21:14 KJV).

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

However, while it is understandable that the Catholic church hesitated to adopt its authentic founder, the neurotic and/or psychotic Saul of Tarsus, as its legitimate leader and model for the papacy, it is paradoxical to say the least, that it preferred to designate Peter who, far from being a "rock", proved on many occasions to be a particularly weak personality with a highly versatile and unpredictable character, to the point of revealing himself, on three critical occasions, in front of public witnesses, to be an outright traitor.

On the face of it, it would have seemed logical to designate Jesus of Nazareth as the foundation stone of the Church – which, apparently, was Saul’s idea, as indicated in 1 Corinthians 3:11 KJV.

The decision of the Church is perfectly incomprehensible so far as I am concerned. If anybody has any inside information to share with me, I should be delighted to hear it.

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Matthew, whose real name was Levi son of Alpheus, is reported to have been a dishonest tax collector.

Jesus met Levi in Capernaum, in his tax booth on the main highway. He was collecting duties from the Hebrew people for Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee, on imported goods brought by farmers, merchants, and caravans. Under the tax system of the Roman Empire, Levi would have paid all the taxes in advance, then collected from the citizens and travellers to reimburse himself.

It seems that Tax collectors were notoriously corrupt because they extorted far and above what was owed, to ensure their personal profit. Because their decisions were enforced by Roman soldiers, no one dared object. Not surprisingly, Jews who became rich in such a fashion were despised and considered outcasts by the members of their community.

Levi is reported to have displayed one of the most radically changed lives in the Bible in response to an invitation from Jesus. He did not hesitate, he did not look back. He left behind a life of wealth and security for poverty and uncertainty. He abandoned the pleasures of this world for the promise of eternal life. He changed his name to Matthew in an attempt to redeem his wayward past, and escape his previous bad reputation, no doubt hoping to find a little more self-esteem as well as that of his compatriots.

Levi, the dishonest and highly detested tax collector thus became Matthew the respectable disciple of Jesus, to whom is generally attributed the Gospel of Matthew, though it seems there is no consensus among scholars on this point. Some consider it was originally written in Greek by a non-eyewitness whose name is unknown to us.

Matthew, Mark and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they include many of the same stories with similar wording. Mark was written first and the two others took Mark as a source, adding additional elements.

Only in Matthew is to be found the indication : "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" .

.

I DONT KNOW WHAT YOUR ASKING OF US PAUL pattersON
Even the best of men, the chosen generation, the people of God,
need to be exhorted to keep from the worst sins...
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/index.php?action=getCommentaryText&cid=68&source=&seq=i.67.2.2
Elders exhorted and encouraged.

A Christian conversation must be honest; which it cannot be, if there is not a just and careful discharge of all relative duties: the apostle here treats of these distinctly...
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/index.php?action=getCommentaryText&cid=68&source=&seq=i.67.2.3

Younger Christians are to submit to their elders, and to yield with humility and patience to God, and to be sober, watchful, and stedfast in faith.

Servants in those days generally were slaves, and had heathen masters, who often used them cruelly; yet the apostle directs them to be subject to the masters placed over them by Providence, with a fear to dishonour or offend God...

Dear david f,

Thanks indeed for the interesting post. I found the following, indicating that Shekinah might not be much different from the ruach Yahweh appearing in Genesis:

> The concept of Shekinah ("presence") is also associated with Holy Spirit in Jewish tradition, such as in Yiddish song: Vel ich, sh'chine tsu dir kummen "Will I, Shekinah, to you come”(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruach_HaKodesh ) <

Looking at religious cultural constructions (representations of the Divine reality for believers) through the yang-yin complementarity PRINCIPLE is, of course, an oriental influence that I fell for. Instead of the yang-yin “binoculars” one can also look through the beauty-truth-goodness “trinoculars” inherited from Hellenic culture. Maybe this is related to the Trinitarian “structure” that Christians see in God. (Sorry, this is a deviation from our topic into my hobby realm.)

>>Paul’s horrible attitudes towards sex and women <<

Again, if I may so, I would be more careful with the word “horrible”. In the Middle Ages doctors amputated legs without anaesthetics, and Inquisitors had their victims tortured on torture racks. Both things are horrible, however one can have understanding for the first case (historical context that Butterfield stresses, i.e. no anaesthetics) but much less for the second. However, in both cases people did not undergo such treatment voluntarily - they were either compelled in order to save at least their lives, or forced by the Inquisitors. On the other hand, in case of Paul, I think there were many women who voluntarily became Christians, (or what you would call those whom Paul addressed his Epistles to) in spite of his teachings about the man-woman relation that today might seem “horrible” to some of us.
(ctd)

(ctd)
You are right that my use of the phrase “oriental-like stagnation” was too terse and can be misunderstood as a Western “chauvinism”. I used it as description of a state of affairs that led to neither our Dark Ages nor Enlightenment followed by the rise of natural sciences and technology that today all - Westerners as well as Easterners - understand and enjoy. I did not mean it as a denigration of oriental civilisations. Of course, there were mutual interactions and interdependence, but again complementarity is in my opinion the best way to describe the relation East-West.

Very roughly speaking, the West excelled in a better understanding of the world outside man, the East in a better understanding of the world inside man. As Rodney Stark put it in his “The Victory of Reason” (Random House 2006):

“Centuries of meditation will produce no empirical knowledge. But to the extent that religion inspires efforts to comprehend God’s handiwork, knowledge will be forthcoming, and because to comprehend something fully it is necessary to explain it, science arises …” and “Real science arose only once in Europe. China, Islam, India and ancient Greece and Rome each had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token … only in Europe did astrology lead to astronomy”.

The Chinese invented the paper but it became an important tool for humanities advancement only after the Western invention of the mechanical movable type printing.

On the other hand, one could quote examples showing that East, Eastern religions, developed better ways and techniques for human “self-comprehension” and self-control.

There are many cultural aspects that illustrate this complementarity. For instance, http://www.drsheedy.com/civilizations-and-history/civilization-differences-east-and-west.php provides even a table to list the complementary characteristic features of the two kinds of civilisations. Of course, this is possible only at the price of perhaps too crude generalisations.

So I think which kind of civilisation was “better”, “more successful” etc depends on what level and from what perspective you want to compare