Myth of “Saint Peter”
Pomp and ceremony and holy razzle-dazzle are effective ways to drown the testimony of quiet truth. By this means of alleging spiritual entitlement, truth is repeatedly crucified. This, obviously, is an outsider view of manufactured belief. And this observation is an expression of grief for the injustices done to truth in the name of spiritual reliability.
The catalyst for this lament springs from the Easter ceremony in Vatican City (April 2010) and the brazen denial that der pope was aware of the sexual transgressions that have been going on in the church for millennia. Cardinal Angelo Sodano, dean of the College of Cardinals, sniffed that it was all “petty gossip” and “a vile smear!” According to Sodano the whole uproar over pedophile priests is due totally to the “anti-Vatican media,” but the “successor to (St) Peter, bishop of Rome, (is) the unfailing rock of the holy church,” said Sodano. Well, that line of succession has quite a long blood soaked history. And there were occasional breaks in the chain of succession as well, one lasting around five years, for example. To put it mildly, there are peculiar viruses attached to the “Bishop of Rome” claim that has its roots anchored deep in church-composed “history.”
It was noted in Time Frames and Taboo Data that the claim that a fisherman apostle named Simon but called Peter was in Rome rest entirely on one source—a work titled The Clementines written around the early 200s CE. In that literary work is a tale of a wonder-working man named Peter coming face to face with the fabled sorcerer/magician named Simon Magus. Peter allegedly challenged Simon Magus to give proof of his magical power. To comply the sorcerer levitated into the air. Peter chose to regard it all as contest of wills and with his divine powers brought down the magician with such force that it broke Simon Magus’ leg. Nothing has ever been presented that could be said to support that Peter in The Clementines story referred to Simon (renamed Peter) of Christian Gospels.
There is a small fact that came to the aid of the later authors of church “history” and inspired the assertion that the Peter of the Gospel stories was active in Rome c. 67. Indeed this tiny fact contributed the names of the alleged first four “bishops of Rome.” Through the general timeframe c. 67 to c. 99, there were priests of ancient Pagan mysteries that had been active in Rome for generations, and they were venerated as PTR, which signified them as interpreters or revealers of divine mysteries. As in Jewish writings the vowels were not inscribed, and the sacred Tau-cross was central in the title indicating his power of interpretation. This opened the freedom for church historians to make an identity switch with a former Pagan priest interpreter and present that mutation as the cornerstone of the faith laid down in Rome.
The interpreters, the PTR of Pagan mysteries, were the highest authority in the Pagan priesthood and the high priest was well-known throughout Rome when the Christian cult was struggling for identity. Thus in the tradition handed down for the first four “bishops of Rome” each take their identity from the Pagan PTR—the title for all Pagan interpreters of the mysteries—whose actual names probably were Linus, Anacletus, and Clement (1).
Thus today if one looks up the list of popes of the Roman Catholic Church in any encyclopedia they will find total untruths listed as facts. Peter is claimed to have been crucified in Rome in 67 CE, supposedly as part of Nero’s attempt to eliminate Christians—who at that time were not yet referred to as Christians. Even so, we are to believe that the second “bishop of Rome,” Linus, rushed forward to preside as Christ’s representative. Linus is asserted to have presided as “bishop” from 67 to maybe 79. The next “bishop,” Anacletus, third from Peter, is listed as serving from 79 to some uncertain time around 90. Fourth after Peter (PTR) is listed Clement (1) from 90 to maybe 99. Marcus Ulpian Trajanus became emperor in 98. Oddly, the literature in Rome at the entry into the second century CE remained absolutely silent about any person referred to as Christ. The rowdy new religion was mentioned by only a few contemporary historians such as Plutarch and Juvenal, but none ever referred to a Jesus or a “Christ” as the central figure of that new religion.
So how does the legendary Simon, AKA Peter, stack up against the early Gospels? That earlier Peter was an apostle of Jesus who taught and preached only to Jews. Strict Jewish customs of the times, which considered it “unclean” to venture into Rome, make it illogical that an apostle of a Jewish teacher, who vowed not to preach to the uncircumcised, would toss aside his obligation to his own people to raise a church among Gentiles in Rome.
By Christian lore, Peter was allegedly crucified (upside down) in the Coliseum in 67. This is awkward, for it would indicate that Peter and Paul were both representing differing doctrines of Christianity in the Roman Empire in the same narrow timeframe. And this is the basis for the Peter-Paul controversy that has been so laboriously papered over that the faithful today have little clue of how things just did not and do not match.
Before Christianity assumed squatters rights to what is now the Vatican, the area had been the site of the main temple of Mithras, the Persian god of light. Remembering the PTR connection to the apostle Simon’s name change, there is a haunting suggestion that the professed remains of “Saint Peter” in the underground vault in St Peter’s Basilica are of the Pagan PTR, not of the Jewish fisherman apostle Simon, AKA Peter.