St. Peter's Inverted Cross

[Orias]

A couple of days ago at school, I was confronted while bearing my inverted cross on my wrist.

I was told that the "inverted cross" wasn't a symbol of Satanism, rather it was a reference to St. Peter's advocation of humility and unworth to his lord, Jesus Christ.

I easily dismissed this with the proposition that the inverted cross merely represented the "Opposition" of Christianity.

This was an unexpected confrontation, and I must admit it made me a bit curious. With this I did some research and found that this proclamation wasn't far off from what some believe.

"Get behind me, Satan! You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." Mark 8:33

If it was true that Jesus himself referred to Saint Peter as "Satan", then why was Saint Peter even dubbed a Saint? What exactly do you think when it was said, " You do do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men"?

I have been finding some strange happenings lately, as a practicing Satanist I am curious to know the "true" bond between what most Christians think as "God" and "Satan".

Best regards and Xeper,

Orias

 

[fallingblood]

A couple of days ago at school, I was confronted while bearing my inverted cross on my wrist.

I was told that the "inverted cross" wasn't a symbol of Satanism, rather it was a reference to St. Peter's advocation of humility and unworth to his lord, Jesus Christ.

I easily dismissed this with the proposition that the inverted cross merely represented the "Opposition" of Christianity.

This was an unexpected confrontation, and I must admit it made me a bit curious. With this I did some research and found that this proclamation wasn't far off from what some believe.

"Get behind me, Satan! You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." Mark 8:33

If it was true that Jesus himself referred to Saint Peter as "Satan", then why was Saint Peter even dubbed a Saint? What exactly do you think when it was said, " You do do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men"?

I have been finding some strange happenings lately, as a practicing Satanist I am curious to know the "true" bond between what most Christians think as "God" and "Satan".

Best regards and Xeper,

Orias

I will start with the reference to Peter as Satan. Jesus didn't actually mean that Peter was Satan in the modern sense of the term. He was more rebuking him for focusing on human concerns. Jesus was basically calling him an adversary.

As for Peter being crucified on an upside down cross. It never happened. It was just a legend created afterwards.

 

[Orias]

I will start with the reference to Peter as Satan. Jesus didn't actually mean that Peter was Satan in the modern sense of the term. He was more rebuking him for focusing on human concerns. Jesus was basically calling him an adversary.

I see. So Jesus wasn't calling Peter ,"Satan", in the literal sense, rather what it actually means "Opposition" or "Adversary".

Did St. Peter do something to be deserving of this title?

As for Peter being crucified on an upside down cross. It never happened. It was just a legend created afterwards.

That's strange. I wonder why some type of misinformation would be leaked out like that.

I mean obviously there must of been some incentive behind this disharmonious propagation.

So did St. Peter really view the inverted cross as One of humility and unworth to Jesus, or was that just a legend as well?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Satan was involved an influencing Peter at that verse. Satan was being rebuked. Peter was saying things that were not true, and Peter could not really deliver on, and Jesus was pointing out that Peter was saying things that were lies.

 

[Orias]

Satan was involved an influencing Peter at that verse. Satan was being rebuked. Peter was saying things that were not true, and Peter could not really deliver on, and Jesus was pointing out that Peter was saying things that were lies.

Ah, so when he said, ""Get behind me, Satan! You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." (Mark 8:33), he was meaning that Peter was speaking from the mind of a man instead of the mind of God?

Could you provide me with what Peter was speaking about when Jesus rebuked him (Satan)?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Ah, so when he said, ""Get behind me, Satan! You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." (Mark 8:33), he was meaning that Peter was speaking from the mind of a man instead of the mind of God?

Could you provide me with what Peter was speaking about when Jesus rebuked him (Satan)?

Sure Peter just got done confessing Jesus was the Christ. However, if Peter new anything about the Christ he would know he had to be sacrificed.
Yet then Jesus says what he must suffer, and Peter said, no you won't suffer that. Jesus then replied Get behind me Satan.
Here are the actual verses:

[29] And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
[30] And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.
[31] And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
[32] And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.
[33] But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

Notice in verse 32 what Peter did, he rebuked Jesus. Not a good thing here.

So let's think about it for a minute. We know the wages of sin is death right? So the true power Satan holds over people is the fear of death. People fear death because they are sentient that they are alive. So if Satan can prevent Jesus from doing this sacrifice, death will still have its power.
However, once Jesus rose, we know that the power of death CAN be beaten, and effectively Satan has lost his trump card.

So, Jesus was calling Peter Satan because it is Satan's desire to disrupt Jesus's plans. Understand?

 

[Orias]

Sure Peter just got done confessing Jesus was the Christ. However, if Peter new anything about the Christ he would know he had to be sacrificed.
Yet then Jesus says what he must suffer, and Peter said, no you won't suffer that. Jesus then replied Get behind me Satan.
Here are the actual verses:
Notice in verse 32 what Peter did, he rebuked Jesus. Not a good thing here.

So let's think about it for a minute. We know the wages of sin is death right? So the true power Satan holds over people is the fear of death. People fear death because they are sentient that they are alive. So if Satan can prevent Jesus from doing this sacrifice, death will still have its power.
However, once Jesus rose, we know that the power of death CAN be beaten, and effectively Satan has lost his trump card.

So, Jesus was calling Peter Satan because it is Satan's desire to disrupt Jesus's plans. Understand?

Thanks for the clarification friend

So then, what actions led Peter to be a Saint?

I mean, to me it seems like Peter was a skeptical guy of sorts, yet he remained in hardy in faith. Do you think he still held onto his humanly perceptions, even after this confrontation?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Thanks for the clarification friend

So then, what actions led Peter to be a Saint?

I mean, to me it seems like Peter was a skeptical guy of sorts, yet he remained in hardy in faith. Do you think he still held onto his humanly perceptions, even after this confrontation?

Just as Saul's conversion it was the same with Peter. Once God wants you he takes you. You have no choice in the matter.

 

[fallingblood]

That's strange. I wonder why some type of misinformation would be leaked out like that.

I mean obviously there must of been some incentive behind this disharmonious propagation.

So did St. Peter really view the inverted cross as One of humility and unworth to Jesus, or was that just a legend as well?

The idea was that Peter basically respected Jesus so much that he did not feel himself worthy of the same death. It was somewhat of a humble move on his part. I believe the legend goes that he requested to be crucified upside down as basically a sign of being less than Jesus.


As for Peter becoming a saint. Part of that has to do with the tradition of him being the first Pope and really helping with the movement. Part of it has to do with the miracles attributed to him (we can see some of those in Acts). Part of it has to do with Peter being the rock on which Jesus founded the church.

 

[horizon_mj1]

I can see the depth of the op here. Wouldn't it be better asked: who is anyone aside from the Divine to grant sainthood? I appreciate the legend of Apostle Peter as well. (Oh and being granted an apostle was the choice of Jesus and Jesus alone, anyone who differs from what his choices were in my opinion are wrong; it would be like someone dictating who are your friends and who are not.)

 

[Orias]

Just as Saul's conversion it was the same with Peter. Once God wants you he takes you. You have no choice in the matter.

I see...

Even if he isn't the God other people want him to be to you...scary

The idea was that Peter basically respected Jesus so much that he did not feel himself worthy of the same death. It was somewhat of a humble move on his part. I believe the legend goes that he requested to be crucified upside down as basically a sign of being less than Jesus.


As for Peter becoming a saint. Part of that has to do with the tradition of him being the first Pope and really helping with the movement. Part of it has to do with the miracles attributed to him (we can see some of those in Acts). Part of it has to do with Peter being the rock on which Jesus founded the church.

Ah, this clears up a lot. Thanks for the info