Archive for Peter

Gnostic Wisdom in New Testament

Posted in agnoticism, Atheism, Atheist, belief, Bible, Christianity, ecology, faith, freethought, humanity, life, prehistory, random, religion, thoughts with tags , , , , , , , , , on April 16, 2010 by chouck017894

Over two thousand years ago the symbolism and mythology of several Pagan mystery sects were beginning to fragment while a multifaceted group was developing diverse interpretations which became lumped under the identity as “Gnostic”—from Greek gnostikos, “man of knowledge.”  The movement spread largely through men of culture who sought the secret of higher life.  Unfortunately, lofty thought became entangled with crude mythology and then floundered in mysticism.

Gnosticism was, for the most part, centered on the highest ethics.  To understand Gnostic thought, their concept of ethics was perceived from an amoral perspective.  Remember, amoral does not mean immoral: it is non-judgmental acceptance.  This is difficult for modern religionists to comprehend since standard religious instruction is to uncompromisingly classify things as good/sinful and black/white—with no shades of gray being allowed for consideration.  Unlike rigid religionism, Gnostics recognized that diverse energies found throughout the universe serve as the generative action responsible for all things in Creation.  For this reason the Gnostics regarded what we know as the Old Testament to be the shameful account of Jehovah’s crimes against humanity.  Yahweh/Jehovah was not accepted by them as the true God or the active Source, but as the identity of a demiurge—an energy involvement that fashioned the material world.  Such Pentateuch/Old Testament characters as Abraham, Moses and the like were consequently regarded as the henchmen of Jehovah who had been dedicated to misdirecting the souls of humans into matter and ignorance.

Since the original purpose of the early Christian literature was composed in Rome in the attempt to soften Jewish spiritual arrogance, the new cultists played down the Gnostic attitude to prevent a too strong direct offence to Jews.  Nonetheless, Gnostic influence was cautiously scattered throughout the New Testament.  Although Christianity owes  many planks of its formation and doctrines to Gnosticism, pure Gnosticism itself also represented one of the most challenging threats to the new Christian movement.  Specifically, it denied the keystone upon which the aspiring priestly hierarchy sought to establish itself.  If, as the Gnostics claimed, evil had existed in Creation from the beginning then Adam, meaning mankind, could not possibly have fallen and neither he nor Eve had chosen to disobey God in Eden.  It then followed that Jesus could not possibly be presented by the priesthood as God’s token of forgiveness for humankind’s entanglement with that inescapable condition.

There is a remarkable verse in the New Testament (Matthew 16:23, revised c. 75 CE) that pretty much states what is wrong with all hard-line and fundamentalist organized religions.  Jesus is portrayed as speaking to Simon Peter, saying, “…thou art an offence unto me: for you savor not the things that be of  God, but those that be  of men.”  The real kicker in this scene is that this reproach of Peter comes after verse 19, or immediately after Peter had been given the keys of the kingdom of heaven!  The implication is that the church that he is to establish is intended to be the challenger of the infinite creative powers that are personified as “God.”  There is profound Gnostic wisdom hidden here.

The reason for this rebuke of Peter by Jesus is that Peter stands as the representative of the continuity in matter-existence that resists the necessity of its own transformation.  Thus Jesus utters the accusation that Peter savours those thing that be of men.  What is illustrated with this peculiar scene is that the confinement of consciousness in our physical-matter forms is what traumatizes the human ego, for it is ego that is obsessed with material identity and wishes to dam the natural flow that we interpret as life/death.

Mankind has lost sight of the soul-saving truth that religion is made for man: man is not made for any particular religion.

Knowing this, we are justified in saying to hard-line and hierarchical style religions, just as Jesus is alleged to have said to Peter, “Get the behind me Satan: you are an offence to me.”

1 Comment »

Peter, true nature of

Posted in Atheist, Bible, Christianity, culture, random, religion with tags , , , on June 14, 2009 by chouck017894

There is a remarkable verse in the New Testament (Matthew 16:23, written c. 70-75 CE) that pretty much states what is wrong with all the world’s organized religions.  Jesus is portrayed as speaking to Simon/Peter, saying, “…thou art an offense unto me: for you savor not the things that be of god, but those that be of men.”  The real kicker in this statement is that the reproach comes immediately after Peter has been given the keys to the kingdom of heaven! (in verse 19)

It is thus implied that the worldly structure that Peter is to establish is to be fashioned as a polar adversary to the infinite creative powers that man personifies and refers to as “god.”  Speak of diabolical!  But there is profound Gnostic wisdom revealed in this scene.

The reason for this scene of rebuke by Jesus is that Peter stands as the representative of the continuity in matter-existence that resists the necessity of its own physical-matter destruction.  Thus Jesus utters the accusation that Peter (formerly Simon) savors those things that are of man’s creation.  What this illustrated with this  peculiar incident is that the confinement of  personal consciousness in our physical-matter form is what actually traumatizes the human ego that is so obsessed with material identity and wishes to dam the natural flow that we interpret as life/death.  And so  in Matthew 15:23 it is stressed: “But he (Jesus) turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me Satan: thou art an offence unto me…”  And then in Luke 22:31 another reference to Peter’s position: “And the Lord said, Simon, Simon behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat…”  Which means that Satan is merely the personification of man’s blind tendency to obsess over and lust after material things.

These lines, among many more, warn us that we must understand that the character we know as Peter from New Testament narratives is mythical, not historical.  Indeed, to take any scriptural verses literally is extremely perilous to spiritual wellbeing.  Peter (formerly Simon) is proudly proclaimed as meaning “rock,” but it is a carefully placed clue that the character actually represents and personifies the rock upon which we all live, this planet, Earth, not the cornerstone of a faith system.  This implication is accentuated again in St. John 21 where Peter is told not once but three times “…feed my lambs,” a reference to the three biologic kingdoms on this planet.  (St. John 21:15, 16, 17)

To claim this characterization of our rocky planet as the cornerstone of a faith system is artificial and self-defeating.  Once we understand this, that Peter’s character was used to symbolize planet Earth, it is evident why no  provision for a successor to Peter was ever provided for in the story.  Nonetheless, the Catholic encyclopedia insists that Peter’s founding of the Roman bishoric is “among the best ascertained facts  of history…’

Sorry.  It’s all myth.

3 Comments »

Paul, the Revisionist

Posted in Atheist, Bible, Christianity, culture, freethought, history, random, religion, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on May 23, 2009 by chouck017894

Paul of Tarsus, the self-proclaimed apostle of Jesus, appears conveniently upon the scene when the floundering Jesus cult that had arisen c.65 was in need of redirection to attract more followers. Unfortunately no genuine records or legal accounts have ever been found to support that he ever existed.

With the character of Paul introduced into the scheme of things c.95 the original focus of the Jesus cult was skillfully shifted away from spiritual/moral teachings attributed to the Jew Jesus (as in Matthew and Mark) and redirected to more mundane values of attracting a broader-based sector of converts and setting up an operational structure of the sect. The awkwardness of the transitional period (c.84-100) has been buried under countless rewrites by the faith business, and Pauline graft-ons to the Peter foundation is all but forgotten by present day devotees.  But where the character of Paul is portrayed as having labored to broaden the principles of Christian faith to welcome and enfold the diverse ranks of man–not just the Jews–the character of Peter (the alleged “rock of the church”) had, in the earliest gospel tales, openly rejected Gentile faithful!

There are curious parallels in the presentation of Paul which seem like a distant echo of events that distinguished Old Testament characters. For beginners, this New Testament character has his name changed from Saul to Paul–which oddly echoes the Jewish myths in which Abram becomes Abraham, and Jacob becomes Israel. The life-parallels then proceed with suspicious similarity. To quote from Time Frames and Taboo Data:

“Savants have pointed out that Paul’s conversation, conversion and mission closely parallel the story highlights of Moses’ calling. Moses, by Old Testament accounts, was raised as an Egyptian but became the leader of the Israelites, and Paul was born a Jew and became leader of the Christians; God allegedly revealed himself to Moses in a burning bush, and Jesus supposedly made himself known to Paul in a blinding light; Moses became the lawgiver of the Israelites, and Paul is credited with laying down the principles of salvation. God allegedly instructed Moses to go to Sinai and do god’s work, and Paul is depicted as having been instructed to go to Damascus to further Jesus’ uncompleted work.” (page 201) In addition, just as Moses was portrayed as clashing with the rigid policy of the pharaoh, Paul was cast as clashing with the policy of Peter in Rome.

Unaswered in Gospel is how Paul was able to finance the many travels he is said to have undertaken to spread his version of Jesus’ sacrified for them. As noted in Time Frames and Taboo Data, “…although accounts of his travels indicate genuine knowledge of the places mentioned, there is never any account of how he could have financed so many wide-ranging journeys. And he did not travel alone; others are mentioned in letters attributed to him. Any long journey necessitated carrying along food, drink, clothing, and arrangements had to be made for ships or pack animals. How could a mere missionary pay for all that activity?” It was also noted that only aristocrats and/or ranking military persons could have financed such extensive travels.

Paul is portrayed as having traveled to many major cities and several provinces of the Roman Empire: places such as Damascus, Antioch, Troas, Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonia, Athens, and Corinth. The provinces he is claimed to have visited included Syria, Cilica, Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia, and Illyricum. Noted in the book, “Even if financial support could have been offered from various fledgling churches, they could not have afforded such monumental costs, for in this time period the outlying churches would have been struggling just to exist.”

At this time the movement that would become Christianity was being redirected, with earlier “gospels” being altered for broader appeal. In 2 Corinthians, for example, it is averred that Paul’s account of Jesus’ life is the only true one: the apostles that are said to have actually associated with and interacted with Jesus–some of whom were supposedly still preaching–are called deceivers! In 1 Timothy (1:3), Paul struggles with so-called heretics of his doctrine. Also in 1 Timothy (6:3), Paul’s usurpation of the earlier cult movement is muscled into place with Paul stating that anyone who disagrees with him will go to hell.

But it would not be until 325 CE and the Council of Nice that Paul’s theories and doctrine would be voted into near-“official” status. Then in 382, with the Council of Rome, the doers and shapers of faith made it bindingly official, and accepted only four books as coming closest to Paul’s ideas—those being the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This was all in spite of the claim that it was Peter on whom the church was built! As they say, god moves in mysterious ways. Thus a vast library of early books was relegated to the trash bin and the business of Christian domination of the people was officially launched.

And the Roman Empire collapsed not long after.

1 Comment »