Upside down cross on popes chair.

reply to post by dontreally


I believe that we are going to have to agree to disagree.

To me, it seems eminently more reasonable to believe that (if you accept the premise that Peter asked to be crucified upside down) that Catholics (who believe that Peter was the first Pope and that when they speak with the full authority of the Church speak 'ex cathedra') would honor the Seat of Peter by commemorating his fidelity to Christ than to believe that someone commissioned a symbolic representation of the possible underlying mystical tenets of Christianity, had that engraved on the chair and that everyone in the religious hierarchy who were aware of this and everyone that followed who sussed it out have remained silent.

It's an interesting theory, but I believe that that Occam's Razor would point us in the direction of the official story.

Eric

Originally posted by EricD
reply to post by dontreally

 

I believe that we are going to have to agree to disagree.

To me, it seems eminently more reasonable to believe that (if you accept the premise that Peter asked to be crucified upside down) that Catholics (who believe that Peter was the first Pope and that when they speak with the full authority of the Church speak 'ex cathedra') would honor the Seat of Peter by commemorating his fidelity to Christ than to believe that someone commissioned a symbolic representation of the possible underlying mystical tenets of Christianity, had that engraved on the chair and that everyone in the religious hierarchy who were aware of this and everyone that followed who sussed it out have remained silent.

It's an interesting theory, but I believe that that Occam's Razor would point us in the direction of the official story.

Eric

Occams Razor isnt always correct, you know.

For instance, i and a few of my friends could decide to commit a crime. wanting to avoid being caught we could develop an elaborate ruse that would pin the crime on someone else. Probably close to the person were targeting and a person who you could argue had some personal vandetta with the subject.

Point being. Elaborate conspiracy destroys occams Razor. It can be a fine tool when it comes to certain subjects. But religion? politics? More often than not in these spheres elaborate machinations are at work - totally going against a theory thats been dogmatized to a degree where people simply do not believe certain things because its simply too complicated sounding. Simplicity is always right, most would think. But the world does not work that way. Human beings, do not work that way.

You should appreciate the fact that a cross is a symbol for what i described, otherwise, whats a cross to you? Do you think there isnt any theological meaning, behind the cross? Or a star of david or the crescent moon? Even letters in every language have symbol meanings, when you get down to it. Hebrew for instance is a remarkable language in this regard.

Everything is symbols. Why isnt this spoken about? Maybe because its a very academic subject thats reserved for the elites in religion, politics etc. Its also a very touchy subject that has always been veiled in secrecy - secret socieites, from ancient times till now for instance in the west have been discreet about their knowledge. Look at freemasonry.

I dont think my explanation of the cross is wrong at all.. Often, what you read you in ancient writings, like with Origin giving anecdotal information about St. Peters crucifixition, is allegorical, and not literal. You find this in Jewish Midrashic writings aswell. A concept is being alluded to; and its being down through the medium of a story, or a parable.

3 is always associated with spirit, or, the abstract. Spirit being a term for the abstract. All things we analyze can possess three intrinsic parts to it. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Theses are qualities. These qualities can materialize and become relevant through a vessel. The vessel being the material world. Thus, you find a elongation of the crosses bottom part. Its lowered into the physical. Flip it around, and you have matter, being considered superior, or the basis, of the abstract, or spiritual.

Is this not what people believe today? Our minds exist by virtue of the physical organism? Without a body - we simply do not exist in any conscious sense. Everything that goes along with this idea. Liberalism, materialism, etc is what the upside down cross symbolizes.

Ok, I can understand and respect your opinion.

I agree that Occam's Razor isn't an absolute, but I do believe that it is applicable here.

I feel very strongly that the much more likely scenario is the commonly accepted homage to St. Peter and you believe that it is instead a symbol for a deeper, probably gnostic message. That's cool. Your theory is interesting, but again, we are going to have to disagree on this.

Eric

Originally posted by EricD
Ok, I can understand and respect your opinion.

I agree that Occam's Razor isn't an absolute, but I do believe that it is applicable here.

I feel very strongly that the much more likely scenario is the commonly accepted homage to St. Peter and you believe that it is instead a symbol for a deeper, probably gnostic message. That's cool. Your theory is interesting, but again, we are going to have to disagree on this.

Eric

Sure...

hope you dont mind me asking another question.

Lets go to the fundamental issue here. What is a symbol? Would this not be the place to start? If we can determine and ascertain the real use of symbols, wouldnt that be the more obvious and likely meaning behind the popes use of a inverted cross on his chair?

If this issue is ignored, than im sorry, youre not being very objective.

Symbols are meaningful. Whether as universal as the insignia of a religion, or the coat of arms of a pretentious noble family, symbols condense the entire meaning and singular purpose of whatever they stand to represent.

reply to post by dontreally


I understand where you are coming from and trying to ascertain what a symbol is and what purpose it serves is a great place to start.

Unfortunately, it seems that you may believe that all symbols are replete with deeper meaning and that simply isn't true. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Although many symbols do have a deeper meaning, I don't believe this does. It could certainly be a case of the eye of the beholder and ymmv, but I don't see any evidence for it being a symbol for anything more than an attempt to inspire Peter's successors to emulate his fidelity.

Eric

A cross cannot be upside down, it can only be aligned.

Quocunque Jeceris Stabit

The simple answer would be that St. Peter (of St. Peter's Basilica, that St. Peter)

Was crucified (by request) upside down, because he did not want to emulate Christ in his death.

Originally posted by Loki
The simple answer would be that St. Peter (of St. Peter's Basilica, that St. Peter)

Was crucified (by request) upside down, because he did not want to emulate Christ in his death.

Why should i believe you?

The simple answer is what someone named Loki would want me to believe.

I mean, the "trickster" archetype, is all about deception, manipulation, sophistication, convolution.

Originally posted by EricD
reply to post by dontreally

 

I understand where you are coming from and trying to ascertain what a symbol is and what purpose it serves is a great place to start.

Unfortunately, it seems that you may believe that all symbols are replete with deeper meaning and that simply isn't true. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Although many symbols do have a deeper meaning, I don't believe this does. It could certainly be a case of the eye of the beholder and ymmv, but I don't see any evidence for it being a symbol for anything more than an attempt to inspire Peter's successors to emulate his fidelity.

Eric

Most things, indeed do have deeper meaning, regardless of what you may think. For instance, common cliches, idioms, songs, nursery rhymes, logos etc, have deeper, esoteric meaning.

And the cross - the cross of the largest religion on earth - ISNT supposed to have a deeper meaning!?

Come on.

In any case. What relevance does the pope sitting on a chair with an inverted cross have to peter? Why not hang an inverted cross in church? why does his chair relate to peter?

Originally posted by dontreally
In any case. What relevance does the pope sitting on a chair with an inverted cross have to peter? Why not hang an inverted cross in church? why does his chair relate to peter?

The relevance is that every Pope is considered to be a successor to Peter. Indeed, the most important pronouncements from the Pope are considered to be 'ex cathedra' or 'from the chair'. It is a reference to his means of crucifixion, as believed by the early Church, attested to by Tertullian and Origen and supported by the archaeological investigations of Margherita Guarducci.

You wouldn't hang an upside down cross in a Church as it's a reference to Peter, not Jesus.

I'm not sure what your last question means, but I'll be happy to discuss it if you can elaborate.

Eric

Originally posted by EricD

Originally posted by dontreally
In any case. What relevance does the pope sitting on a chair with an inverted cross have to peter? Why not hang an inverted cross in church? why does his chair relate to peter?

The relevance is that every Pope is considered to be a successor to Peter. Indeed, the most important pronouncements from the Pope are considered to be 'ex cathedra' or 'from the chair'. It is a reference to his means of crucifixion, as believed by the early Church, attested to by Tertullian and Origen and supported by the archaeological investigations of Margherita Guarducci.

You wouldn't hang an upside down cross in a Church as it's a reference to Peter, not Jesus.

I'm not sure what your last question means, but I'll be happy to discuss it if you can elaborate.

Eric

This all makes sense in a relative sense. So, the chair would apply to peter. Thats understood.

However, the intrinsic issue is still unresolved.

For instance, ill give you an example from Judaism. Ezekiels vision of G-d occured in a way that was metaphorical. This is why religions of all ages - especially the pagans, used metaphor when expressing their spiritual philosophy. The creator speaks to man through metaphor. His angels, souls, speak to man through metaphor. Ive experienced this many many times in dreams. There is clearly an organizing intelligence that works upon mans imagination, utilizing images that can be likened to the force thats working upon it.

So, In Ezekiels vision, he describes ophanim, cherubs and above the cherubs theres the throne of glory, and upon the throne the image of a man. This is all kabbalistic. The ophanim means 'wheels' it refers to this cyclical world. It deals with the forces of nature. Its the 'wheels' that makes the world turn. Above them are the cherubs. The cherubs are angelic forces - spirits, that work between the higher worlds and the ophanim. In othe words, Cherubs influence and direct the ophanim. Likewise, the cherubs are influenced by the Serafim, who themselves exist in the world of the throne.This is like one big chain. What is the 'throne of glory'. Why the throne - Kisey in Hebrew. A throne is where the king sits. What is sitting? In Hebrew, the word for blessing is Baraka. Its related to the word for kneeling, knee, Beerka. Same letters in both words. When G-d 'blesses' he lowers himself to this world, as when one lowers himself to the ground to kneel. This is why lightning, in Hebrew, is baraka. In kabbalah, its understood that man is made in the divine image, so everything that exists in man is a reflection of the image of G-d. Back to the throne. G-d lowers himself, you could say, to sit on the throne. The image of the man, is the image of G-d, which man is a reflection of.

You can see how deeply the Tanakh uses metaphor. You have to look at the underlying dynamic which underlies the symbol, which is merely a container, or visualization of the spiritual power or motion at work.

So because this is the essence of the spiritual experience, that man can only grasp the divine in this world world through metaphor and similtude, all of mans religious stories are conveyed in such a manner. Whether its the worlds great religions, their general symbols, or nursery rhymes, brothers grimm, common idioms, songs, movies, comic books. you would be absolutely amazed how often mystical allegory is inserted in the medium.

So. I get why Peter relates to the chair. But, why was Jesus crucified on a cross? Why was peter crucified upside down? This all has mystical relevance. For instance, the church is seen as the bride of christ. Its always referred to as such. Christ would therefore be the masculine, and the church, the feminine. The pope is considerd the vicar of christ - meaning essentially, christ incarnate on earth. What does Peter mean? Peter is from the indo european root, Pytar, which means "father". In th east, in indus valley area during the early days of vedanta, referred to G-d as Dyeus Pytar. "father G-d". In Rome he was called DeusPitar (or Jupiter) "father G-d". Both pitar and Deus have found their way into latin as the words for G-d and father, both words being derived from a much earlier and ancient pagan culture.

Do you see the symbolism? Peter is christ, the masculine on earth, but hes on EARTH - whereas christ, the divine man, is in heaven. Hes a reflection, or INVERSION, of Christ. Hence his being crucified upside down. Hes the groom to the church, as his name "father" implies. Whereas Chruch is actually from the word Circe - as in the greek goddess of magic, and circles (a circle is considered a spiritual unit. Thus, church is meant to unfiy the separate individuals who attend it into forming a greater spiritual unit). Also, imagine this world is a mirror image of the world above it. just as a mirror inverts its image, so does this world.

Of course all this is just speculation on my part. However, I have studied a little bit of Gnosticism which is why i know that the New Testament is only meaningful in an archetypal sense when understood through its teachings. Otherwise, the new testament is just a book of stories. And if you believe that, than you simply do not understand religion. Also, i believe as gnosticism teaches, that christianity is dualistic at its core. Just its pagan relatives, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and even Sufism in Islam are. So, as the divine man, Jesus, is crucfied on a cross which subjugates matter(being a reality in the world of spirit, matter is thus extraneous, thus far removed from the upper three parts) whereas in this world, in the world of matter, the reverse is the case. The body is dominant whereas the spirit is subjugated. Given man lives in two realms simultaneously, his mind in heaven and his body on earth, obviously than, "christ" is a symbol that involves and interincludes both these aspects of mans existence, the spiritual, contemplative being and the restless lustful animal. The former lives in heaven whereas the latter is relinquished to the physical.

reply to post by Nakash

Why can you not admit when you are wrong? It is absolutely St Peter's cross. No conspiracy there!

Don't see it as upside down. It's just a cross, turn it left, right up and down, the cross remains the cross. Cross, Cross, cross, and cross. Crosscutter didn't do a good job?.. carry out the message Jesus died.

Originally posted by kinglizard
It's called St. Peter's Cross.

Peter asked to be crucified upside down because he didn't feel worthy to hang on the cross like Jesus. The upside down cross as a symbol of humility.

en.wikipedia.org...

That, of course, is the 'cover story' widely propagated, unopposed, by both the Roman church and its subserviant media, including Wikipedia.

Peter being crucified upside down demonstrated Peter's Knowledge of what Paul was doing to the Teaching of Jesus; and was, in fact, a Prophecy that the church that Peter started would become what the Revelation of John refers to as the "whore of Babylon" (see, also, the Apocalypse of Peter, found at Nag Hammadi, Egypt)...

The mother of both 1500 years of Christian anti-Semitism and Naziism; the exterminator of at least tens of thousands of Albigensians; who knows how many Jews and Muslims during the Crusades; hundreds of thousands of the indigenous populations of the Americas and the Pacific Islands and Asia; and the enslavement and slaughter of the black peoples of Africa.

And what does it mean to turn the Teaching of Jesus upside down?

It means to accuse of being 'possessed by demons' anyone who receives the revelation of the memories of previous lives (or who teaches the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth', as did Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel and Mohammed).

This was officially published in the L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, in its Easter edition of 1990, if my memory serves me correctly.

Wikipedia, by the way, is merely the Marketing Department for the whore of Babylon.

It will not allow the Truth about the Doctrine of "resurrection" being a Doctrine of 'Rebirth' to be published either.

Michael

Originally posted by Michael Cecil

Peter being crucified upside down demonstrated Peter's Knowledge of what Paul was doing to the Teaching of Jesus; and was, in fact, a Prophecy that the church that Peter started would become what the Revelation of John refers to as the "whore of Babylon" (see, also, the Apocalypse of Peter, found at Nag Hammadi, Egypt)...

Do you have any proof to back up this claim? I realize that your likely response will be similar to your responses to other people that ask for evidence or question your claims, being that I wouldn't understand or accept the proof so there is no need to offer it, but I thought that I should ask anyway.

Do you have any proof that Wikipedia is under the control of the Vatican? It seems much more likely that they don't believe that your assertion has any merit.

Eric

Originally posted by EricD

Do you have any proof to back up this claim?

Maybe you should read Karl Popper with regards to the fundamental a prioris of any conceptual system not being provable.

The metaphysical duality cannot be proven; although the entire scientific method is founded upon the consciousness of the 'thinker'.

Read the Apocalypse of Peter.

Would you accept that as evidence--not proof, but evidence?

Highly unlikely.

Michael

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Read the Apocalypse of Peter.

Would you accept that as evidence--not proof, but evidence?

Which version and proof of what?

Thanks,

Eric

Originally posted by EricD

Originally posted by Michael Cecil
Read the Apocalypse of Peter.

Would you accept that as evidence--not proof, but evidence?

Which version and proof of what?

See The Nag Hammadi Codices in English, edited by James Robinson.

Evidence that the Knowledge of Peter was opposed by the pagan speculations and metaphysical philosophical inversion of the Teaching of Jesus by Paul.

Michael