Archive for Peter-Paul controversy

Early Christian Text Modifications

Posted in Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, faith, history, random, religion, scriptures, theology with tags , , , , , , on February 1, 2014 by chouck017894

Placing unquestioning faith in ancient texts written by crafty priest-authors is not exactly a characteristic of intellectual consistency. But the idea of downplaying intellectual activity as a way to honor a Creator-God seems to be encouraged in each of the three western world’s “holy books.” Even the revered “saint” Paul (traditionally dated 3-68 CE) made the young Jesus cult’s anti-intellectual message clear around 65 CE. At that time, allegedly under Paul’s guidance, the Jesus cult was being channeled in a new direction away from its earlier concentration of attempting to attract Jewish converts. Paul’s drive to redirect the earlier Mark/Matthew gospel accounts with the objective for broader appeal to non-Jews is evident in several of the later books also attributed to him. For example, in 2 Corinthians, written c. 100-105, but credited to Paul, it is averred that only Paul’s account of Jesus’ life is the true one: the apostles that are said to have actually associated with and interacted with Jesus–some of whom would still have been preaching during Paul’s lifetime–are called deceivers!

A curious aspect of this Christian star, Paul, is that no genuine Roman records have ever been presented that support the claim that this person was a true flesh and blood being. He and his followers are known only from Christian tradition, not from any verified history records. Remember, Paul is traditionally held to have been executed at the same time and place as Peter (in 68) by command of Nero, which makes it awkward to credit Paul with the composition of the numerous New Testament books attributed to him: among them Acts, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, etc. raise serious questions of legitimacy. We should note that the claim that both Peter and Paul were executed at the same time in Rome came only from Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (260?-340?)–or some two hundred years after the alleged event. And this noted church historian was not above occasionally embellishing upon church storylines.

“Saint” Paul is said to have died in 68 (according to Eusebius), but nonetheless Paul is credited with penning 1 Corinthians (15:12, written c. 94-100, which states, “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is not resurrection of the dead?” Scholars have noted that Paul’s writings can be sophisticated, and there is disagreement whether the thirteen letters to outlying churches which are attributed to Paul are genuine. Also there is the fact that Paul’s doctrine of resurrection was not accepted by the earlier Jesus cult representatives. In 1 Timothy(1:3), written later c. 103-105, Paul is portrayed as having struggled with the so-called heritics of his doctrine. Also in 1 Timothy (6:3) Paul’s revision of the earlier cult dogma is muscled into place with Paul saying that anyone who disagrees with him will go to hell! But the history-altering doctrine attributed to Paul would not be voted into official belief status until the scheming conglomerate of men recognized the lucrative business potential of a strictly controlled faith system at the Councils of Nice in 325 and in 382. It was then that an institutionalized corporate-style faith system, modeled upon Roman Empire politics, was declared by bishops to be supreme and Catholic (from the Greek katholikos, meaning “whole” or universal).

The texts allegedly written (after 68 CE) by Paul were composed to attract converts from the throngs of common people—more accurately, the lesser educated. If one doubts that the early Jesus cult sought to appeal to less educated people look more closely at the New Testament for any instruction on how to attain enlightenment. In the early books of Matthew (10:11), edited c. 55-60, the instruction directed to the faithful is to not study a problem but to pray and ask for divine guidance. On the surface this may sound spiritually inspirational. The verse reads in part: “…take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.” That methodology happened to be common mystery school instruction in that 55-60 timeframe. And in Matthew 10:16 wisdom is equated with evil! The implication in that assessment of seeking wisdom seems to be that God did not give man a brain to use with the intention that man might increase in wisdom and thus assume responsibility for himself and thereby improve life for everyone.

Thus in his faith system overhaul Paul preserved the early Jesus cult practice of encouraging minimum brain activity. Subsequently in 1 Corinthians 3:19 an attempt was made to make the earlier Matthew statement a bit more palatable by altering into “wisdom of this world is foolishness. In this revision of cult promotion the Roman mindset of the author Paul is imposed in 2 Corinthians 10:5 where it is stated “…bring into captivity every thought to obedience to Christ.” In other words, every thought and action one has must be a slave to the formulated Christian version of God. And because confession is said to be good for the soul, it is haphazardly confessed in 1 Corithians 1:18 and in 2:16 that Christianity is directed to the ignorant, not to the learned and wise.

It is alleged that Paul set out on his Christian mission around the year 45 (supposedly he would have been around 42). The message that he is said to have struggled to establish was not particularly dissimilar to the Pagan religions of that timeframe. For example, the well-known gods Tammuz (also know as Adonis), Mithras and others were celebrated in Rome and Antioch, and they were also resurrection gods, so the doctrines that Paul is credited with introducing did not depart radically from ancient Pagan presentations. In support of Paul’s doctrine, however, in the NT book of Galatains 2:9 (written later c. 94-100), it is claimed that Paul referred to James and Cephas (Cephas is better known as Simon/Peter) and John, as having been the three principle leaders of the original church in Jerusalem. (Curiously there was no such word as “church” in that timeframe; the closest to that meaning was ecclesia, meaning a place of assembly.) Of these three alleged principle apostles of Jesus, only Cephas (better known as Simon or Peter) and John were never given more than token acknowledgment by Paul. Tradition has it that Peter and John were arrested by Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, and according to Acts 4:32 (written c. 84-90) those who judged the two apostles “…saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated (illiterate), common men, (and) they (the judges) wondered; and they (the judges) recognized that they (the apostles) had been with Jesus.” And yet it is these “uneducated, common men” who have been traditionally glorified as the authors of early Jesus cult literature.

Nero became Emperor in 54. According to Christian lore, around the year 55 Paul was already responsible for a mass burning of books, which HE had judged to speak of “strange things.” In other words, the earliest texts of the “gospels” were already being revised, and the older Jesus cult literature available to the public, which had earlier incorporated more direct appeal to Jewish seekers, were being collected and destroyed. That would have required some economic and political influence in order to implement such a wide-range undertaking, but there were aristocratic families (such as the Piso clan) and their literati friends who happened to have a vested interest in government policies: they also had the financial means to employ copyists and pursue the replacement of Jesus cult literature.

Christian tradition (which has no Roman documentation for support) has it that Paul was arrested in 58 In that timeframe the cult still was not yet known as Christians; the little sect referred to themselves simply as the brethren. The first written gospel book, Mark, had then been revised and destroyed. The timing of Paul’s alleged arrest does happen to coincide with the noticeable shift that occurred in Nero’s demeanor in this same timeframe. Nero was, in this period, enamored with his mistress Poppaea Sabina, a Jew, and he then divorced and had his wife Octavia murdered, and then had his mother, Agrippa, murdered also. Six years later, in 64, much of Rome went down in flames, and in 65 many distinguished persons organized against Nero, which is known as the Pisonian Conspiracy, so-named after the principal leader, the aristocrat Gaius Calpurnius Piso. The plot was uncovered by Nero and among the prominent Romans other that Gaius Piso who died as a result were the famed statesman, dramatist and former tutor of Nero named Seneca, as well as Seneca’s nephew Lucan, the popular epic poet, among several other notables.

A note of interest: Some twenty years later, in 84, Pliny the Younger (62-113), noted for his epistle-style writing, became a member of the Piso family by marriage to Gaius Calpurnius Piso’s great-granddaughter, known as Calpurnia. And it was after this same general 84 timeframe that Acts of the Apostles, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians were penned. Strangely, a considerable amount of these happen to be in the epistle style.

In the year 98, Marcus Ulpius Trajanus, more commonly known as Trajan, became sole ruler of the Roman Empire upon the death of Nerva. Trajan (d.117) happened to be married to Claudia Phoebe Pomeia Plotina Piso of the aristocratic Calpurnius Piso clan, whose family members had long-held considerable interest in the Jesus cult movement. And it was in this era (up to c. 140 CE) that so many of the New Testament books freely poured out upon the Roman world. Among them: 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Book of Romans, 2 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, Titus, Book of John, Colossians, 2 Timothy, Philemon, 1 and 2 Peter, 1,2 and 3 John, Jude, Revelation, and Hebrews.

By 115 CE, during the reign of Trajan, the Christian movement was exerting a magnetic effect throughout the Roman Empire, especially upon the lower classes, slaves, military and criminals. And in this timeframe literary friends of the true authors of those additional NT texts began to insert what they considered at the time to be only harmless little references into their writing which skillfully implied a genuine historic background for the Jesus cult. So even in that early timeframe true history was being overhauled slightly for cult benefit (a tactic which is dutifully practiced to this day in the United States by political minded religionists). Among those willing to aid and abet such historical manipulation in that early cult timeframe was the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus–a pseudonym for Cornelius Palma, a friend of Pliny the Younger and a friend of the Pisos. There was also Gaius Suetonius Tranqullius, a Roman biographer and historian who inserted into his accounts a brief reference to the Jesus cult: Tranqullius also happened to be a close friend of Pliny the Younger.

With a background of faith system overhaul such as this, there is a long-established precedence for indulging in advantageous faith system revision–which the revisionists, both religious and political in the US today attempt to emulate. This was precisely the tyrannical danger that the Fathers of democracy sought to avoid in the First Amendment to the US Constitution which declared that church and state must remain separate. And the scheming political drive of the religious extremists today bring with them a depressing awareness of the fact that the symbol of their fanaticism happens to have once been a Roman implement of sadistic torture. That in itself is tragic, for throughout pre-history times the cross symbol had alway served seekers of true spiritual wisdom as the representation of consciousness (self-awareness) which becomes self-motivated in temporary matter; hence it was originally regarded as symbolizing the “tree of life.”

35 Comments »

Birthplace and Delivery of Christianity

Posted in belief, Christianity, faith, religion with tags , , , , , on March 26, 2013 by chouck017894

The New Testament character of “saint” Paul occasionally dropped little bits of information that later generations would fail to notice, or perhaps they chose to ignore them.  A case in point is his offhand statement that Christianity had actually begun in the city of Antioch (Acts 11), which was then part of Syria, but is now known as Antakya in southern Turkey.  So what was this “saint” referring to?

Antioch was founded c. 300 BCE on the left bank of the Orontes River, and was named by Seduces (1) Nicator in honor of the founder’s father, King Antiochus III the Great.  The settlement and two other nearby colonies were populated largely by Macedonians.  The region was occupied by Pompey in 64 BCE, and Antioch rapidly developed into the largest and most important Roman city in the region, attaining its greatest glory under the Roman emperors.  In the first century CE Antioch was the third largest city of the Roman Empire, and served as the capital of the proconsul province of Syria.  The city would grow in Roman Empire times to become one of the most sumptuous cities in the world due to the fact that it lay on the intersection of trade routes from the Euphrates to the sea, from El Bika to Asia Minor.  It was, therefore, a melting pot of numerous religious cultures as well.  Antioch in the Roman Empire times could boast of a great library and a noted school of philosophy.  And there, too, was traditionally celebrated the yearly death and resurrection of the Babylonian harvest god Tammuz, also known by the Phenician word Adonis, which meant “Lord.”  This Pagan faith had considerable influence on Jewish thought–remember, Ezekiel is said to have roundly rebuked the women of Jerusalem outside the gate of his temple for weeping for the dead Tammuz (Jerome, Epistle 58, ad Paulinium).

There existed in Antioch as well a group of Greek Gnostics who recognized and honored the universal “Logos,” which they identified and revered as the Chrestos, the Life Principle (creative “word”).  From their Chrestos or Chrest this esoteric group referred to themselves as Chrestianoi.  It is from this Greek Gnostic sect’s identity that the authors of Acts introduced the term Chrest, which through the timeframe of Acts composition became written variously as Chrest, Chreist, or as Christ.  Indeed the manner of spelling the word actually identified a specific author through a code of numerical value of the letters!  True history shows that the reference of Jesus as Christ did not become standardized until around 300 CE.  So the Chrestianoi predated by about 300 years the Jesus cult movement, which 600 years later became standarized as Christian.  As Paul acknowledged, the true founding place of Christianity was actually Antioch, and not a region of Palestine nor the city of Rome.

In the timeframe when Paul allegedly visited Antioch on a mission among Antiochene Jews, a famine occurred in Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-30), and Paul and Barnabas are said to have been sent there with famine relief by the new Antiochene church.  How the new fledgling church could have afforded to do this goes unexplained.  But more pressing to Paul was his wish to discuss the issue concerning observance of the Mosaic Law by gentile converts (Acts 15) in regard to the question whether or not men’s genitals had to be circumsized.  To Roman and Pagan seekers the scarring of mens penises seemed a bizarre passport into God’s good graces.

This alleged discussion among the apostles and elders in Jerusalem is referred to as the Apostolic Council, and is said to have taken place in front of the assembled church of Jerusalem.  And here is was that Peter is alleged to have saved the day by purportedly referring to his own experiences with converted gentiles: he is said to have declared that the converts had already received the Holy Spirit apart from the Law.  Considering how strict Simon-Peter was characterized in regard to Judaic Law, this would have been a near-profane assertion from him.  But then the disciple James is claimed to have stepped forward with proof-texts “from the prophets” which he said did indirectly support Peter’s interpretation of the Holy Spirit’s allowance.  James then further  smoothed things over by suggesting a set of minimum obligations for gentiles to follow, and James’ proposal was adopted and became incorporated into what is referred to as the Apostolic Decree, which was then dispatched to the churches in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia.  The obligations that were proposed strangely echoed verses 17-18 (chapter 10) from the priest written book of Leviticus which concerned certain demands directed to the aliens residing in Israel in that prehistory Leviticus timeframe. The adjusted requirements in the Apostolic Decree thus demanded abstinence from idolatry, blood, meat from animals that had been strangled, and sexual immorality.  All theses no-no requirements, however, managed to gradually get watered down into a minimal moral code referred to as the “golden rule.”  Oddly, in Galatians 2:11-14 the impression is given that the question of necessary obligations for converts had not really been been resolved between Paul and Peter.

Unfortunately, the authors of Acts in the earliest versions, in which the character of Paul alluded to the universal Logos (Chrest), did not appeal to the Jewish mentality which leaned through training toward narrow, literal and strict tenets.  This necessitated editing the earlier Pauline theology in which Antioch Gnosticism could be grafted upon Jewish roots.  And this is the whole basis of what became known as the Peter-Paul controversy.  In the earliest writings attributed to Paul there was no expression of a belief in a personal Christ: the tenor was always in regard to a principle, which the Gnostics spoke of as the Chrestos.  The indelible impact that the auxiliary apostle Paul afforded for the emerging church was the blending of the Jewish ideas of Law and submission with the Gnostic interpretations of life, death and resurrection which became the groundwork of Christian doctrine.

A curious fact lingers over the Pauline influence and the Antiochene flavoring that evolved as the Christian faith system, and that is the fact that the early apologist and prodigious writer for the Christian movement, “saint” Justin Martyr (c. 100-165), never mentioned Paul!  That is a most peculiar silence.  But then as late as 254 there were lingering debates over the authenticity of the epistles attributed to Paul.

300 Comments »

Faith in Constant Revision

Posted in agnoticism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, faith, freethought, history, politics, random, religion, Social, thoughts with tags , , , , , , , on May 22, 2011 by chouck017894

An old adage that is apparently taken to heart by the Mad Tea Party and Radical Religionists in the United States today is “ignorance is bliss.”  After all, the idea is openly alluded to in the New Testament.  No, no, this is not a silly attempt at history revision as so ardently indulged in by those aforementioned political/religious nutcases.

Dear old “saint” Paul made the young cult’s anti-intellectual message clear around 95 CE.  At that time he was attempting to channel the  young Christian cult in a new direction away from its earlier concentration on trying to attract Jewish converts.  Paul’s drive to alter the earlier “gospel” accounts with the idea for broader appeal is evident in several of the later books.  For example, in II Corinthians, written c. 100-105, it is averred that only Paul’s account of Jesus’ life is the true one: the apostles that are said to have actually associated with and interacted with Jesus—some of whom were allegedly still preaching—he called deceivers! 

Paul is credited with penning I Corinthians (15:12, on resurrection), written c. 94-100, but his doctrine of resurrection was not accepted by the early church.  In I Timothy (1:3), written later, c. 103-105, Paul is pictured as struggling with the so-called heretics of his doctrine.  Also in I Timothy (6:3), Paul’s revision of the earlier cult doctrine is muscled into place with Paul saying that anyone who disagrees with him will go to hell!  But his history altering doctrine was not voted into “official” status by the resulting corporate church (Catholic) until the Councils of Nice in 325 and 382.

The people that Paul’s message sought to reach and shape as adherents were the throngs of common people; more accurately the lesser educated.  If one doubts that his church sought to keep people in ignorance, look more closely at the New Testament for any instruction on how to attain enlightenment.  Indeed, even in pre-Pauline works such as Matthew 10:16—second revision c. 70-75—it openly equates wisdom with evil.  And in Matthew 10:19 and in Mark 13:11 (edited c. 55-60) the instruction is for people not to study a problem but to pray and ask for divine guidance.  On the surface that sounds good.  But the implication seems to be that God did not give man a brain to use so he might assume responsibility for himself. 

Paul retained that early church idea of encouraging minimum brain activity in his housecleaning enthusiasm.  So in I Corinthians 3:15 it is declared that wisdom is foolishness!  And the author’s Roman mindset is exposed in II Corinthians 10:5 where it is stated that every thought must be a slave to god.  And because confession is said to be good for the soul, the author openly admitted in I Corinthians 1:18 and again in 2:16 that Christianity is directed to the ignorant, not to the learned and wise.

Paul allegedly set out on his Christian mission around the year 45.  The message that he is said to have sought to establish was not particularly dissimilar to other Pagan religions of the timeframe.  For example, well-known gods such as Tammuz, Mithras and others were also resurrection savior-gods, so the doctrines he is credited with did not depart radically from the ancient Pagan presentation.  In support of Paul’s doctrine, however, the NT book of Galatians 2:9, written later c. 94-100, Paul is said to mention James and Cephas (the latter better known as Simon/Peter) and John, as having been the three principal leaders of the original church in Jerusalem.  Of these three, only Cephas (Peter) and John were part of the claimed twelve apostles.  Tradition has it that Peter and John were arrested by Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, and according to Acts of the Apostles, written c. 84-90, the judges of the apostles “…saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, (and) they (the judges) wondered; and they (the judges) recognized that they (the apostles) had been with Jesus.”  And yet it is these “uneducated, common men” who are credited with establishing god’s preferred faith system.

Nero became Emperor in 54.  According to Christian lore, around the year 55, by present means of recording time, Paul was responsible for mass burnings of books which he had judged to speak of “strange things.”  In other words, the early authors of the “gospels” were already attempting disposal of older literature available to the public which had to do with other religious/spiritual concepts.  That move required some economic and political clout to implement such an undertaking, and the aristocratic Piso family and some of their literati friends happened to have such influence. 

Christian tradition (no historical support) has it that Paul was arrested in 58.  In that timeframe the cult was not known as Christians; the little sect referred to themselves simply as the brethren.  The first book, Mark, was only then beginning to be widely distributed in 58—which also required economic support for copiers and distribution.  The story timing of Paul’s alleged arrest thus just happens to coincide with the noticeable shift in Nero’s character in this same timeframe.  Six years later, in 64, much of Rome went down in flames, and in 65 many aristocrats and distinguished persons organized against Nero, which is known as the Pisonian Conspiracy, named after the principal leader Gaius Calpurnius Piso.  The plot was uncovered by Nero, and among the prominent Romans other than Piso who died as a result were the famed statesman, dramatist and former tutor of Nero named Seneca, and Seneca’s nephew Lucan, who was a popular epic poet.

A note of interest:  Somewhat later in the year 84, Pliny the Younger, noted for his epistle-style writing skills, became a member of the Piso family by marriage to Gauis Calpurnius Piso’s great-granddaughter, known as Calpurnia.  And it was through the following timeframe that Acts of the Apostles, I Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians were penned.

In the year 98, Marcus Ulpius Trajanus, more commonly known as Trajan, became sole ruler of the Roman Empire upon the death of Nerva.  Trajan (d. 117) happened to be married to Claudia Phoebe Pompeia Plotina Piso of the aristocratic Calpurnius Piso clan, which had long held considerable interest in the Christian movement.  And it was in this era (up to 140) that so many of the New Testament books freely poured out upon the Roman world.  Among them: I Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Book of  Romans; II Corinthians; I Timothy; Titus; Book of John; Colossians; II Timothy; Philemon; I and II Peter; I, II, II John; Jude: Revelations; and Hebrews.

By 115 the Christian movement was exerting a magnetic effect upon the targeted lower classes, slaves and criminals.  And in this timeframe literary friends began to insert little innocent references into their writings which implied a righteous historic background for the cult.  So even then history was being revised slightly for effect—a tactic dutifully practiced to this day by the political minded religionists in the United States.  Among those willing to aid and abet such spiritual inspiration was the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus—a pseudonym for Cornelius Palma, a friend of Pliny the Younger and the Pisos.  There was also Suetonius Tranquillus, Roman  biographer and historian who also happened to be a close friend of Pliny the younger.

With a background such as this, there is a long-established precedence which the revisionists dutifully emulate in the US today.  And the religious extremists’ scheming political drive brings with it a depressing awareness to the fact that the symbol of their fanaticism happens to have once been a Roman implement of torture.

2 Comments »

Myth of “Saint Peter”

Posted in agnoticism, Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, culture, faith, history, humanity, life, prehistory, random, religion, thoughts with tags , , , , , , , on April 11, 2010 by chouck017894

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.

3 Comments »