The Peter Paul Conspiracy

The Peter Paul Conspiracy

As important as many people confess the Bible to be, so few people read it with any great attention to connecting the details in any intelligible pattern – each incident is supposed to be isolated, as though the Chapter breaks are lines which the intellect dare not cross. However, if one does bother to think, one can begin to see political relationships which could perhaps be embarrassing to the established Christian Churches.

Perhaps one of the most serious embarrassments is the conspiracy between Peter and Paul. It started, as we can read, in Acts 5 when Peter, ever greedy, decided to kill a few Converts for their money – Ananias and Sapphire. People usually think no further then that. People who would be appalled at anybody being slaughtered in the office of a Priest or Minister, don’t give it a second thought that dead bodies had to be carried out from Peter’s library. Doctrine pretends that Peter did not touch these people but that they were killed by the Holy Spirit, but I find it odd that Jesus never used the Holy Spirit to kill anybody, and that the only miracle attributable to Peter, who, by the way, could NOT walk on water, was the power to kill, apparently by snapping his fingers.

But now let us see the connection of this murderous event to further developments within the Early Church. Notice in the very next chapter of Acts, Chapter 6, that the people demand a New Leadership within the Church – particularly regarding matters of Finance. How can this NOT be seen as a protest against Peter’s Leadership – his violent dictatorship. And notice that the People were not afraid of being struck down by any Holy Spirit – in public protest, out on the street, they knew they were safe enough – it was only in Peter’s private offices, apparently, that the Holy Spirit was handing out death sentences. Perhaps I should point out that Peter’s name – literally “Rocky” – is no better than the name of a low life thug suitable for any such mobster using similar tactics to enforce his authority.

Next, notice in Acts Chapter 7, that a New Leader, Stephen, is elected and comes forward giving a speech. Doctrine supposes that Stephen was just a mid-level functionary, under Peter’s administration. But notice that his Speech has nothing to do with mid-level functionary concerns, but involves the political, social and historical context of Messianic Judaism with the larger Jewish Community. This was a Leader’s speech – it clearly shows that Peter had been replaced.

Enter Paul who with a group of his thugs murders Stephen, again allowing Peter to regain ascendancy over the Church. This same Paul, within months claims to be ‘converted’ and comes forward to Peter to claim his reward – well, first, in Acts Chapter 11 Paul pays off Peter with a large collection of money extorted from gentile Greeks, but then in Chapter 15 we have Peter supposedly sponsoring Paul’s schismatic Church of the Gentiles. Here we must remember that the Book of Acts was largely a Paulist Document. We are to suppose that a Franchise Letter was given to Paul authorizing a separate Gentile Church, and yet History provides us with absolutely no copy of this extremely important Franchise Letter, while the Book of Acts provides only the barest details. Now, one can read Herodotus or Thucydides and know certainly that the ancient mind was not simple or retarded, and that any real Franchise Letter would have been as detailed as any modern political charter or constitution. Yet we are to suppose that this Letter of Establishment was never copied, and that it is reasonable that no detail of this foundational document was ever again mentioned in all of written Church History. I would suppose it is more reasonable to say that no such Franchise Letter ever existed. Also, embarrassing to those who suppose Peter was the first Pope is the incongruity that in Acts Chapter 15, Peter is not the Leader of the Church, but is bringing Paul’s Petition forward for the consideration of James who here is acting as the Leader of the Church.

How was it that Peter came to be known as Leader? Well, after 70 A.D. when the Messianic Church of the Jews was largely destroyed and murdered off by the Romans, the Greek Gentile Church established by Paul wished to be recognized as the exclusive Church traceable all the way back to apostolic succession from Christ Himself. Well, they could only trace back to Paul, and Paul’s only connection to the Church was through his dealings with Peter who, in all actuality was probably nothing more than manual labor or a fringe player, – a corrupt maniac not much better than a Judas. But it was enough for the Revisionists of Church History – in order to validate Paul, they touched up the historical record enough to glorify Peter. Though it is puzzling that Peter is ever portrayed in the Gospels as proud, stupid, cowardly, violent and corrupt. And it seemed to set a precedent for the Church that every subsequent Pope, to qualify as a valid successor to Peter, would have to NOT be able to walk on water, would have to have a history of renouncing Christ, be comfortable with murder, and be accustomed to place his political favor with those who would give over bags of money.

But the Bible was not Monolithically Paulist. We have the Letters of James, Jude and John which show no trace of an indication that Peter was in anyway in authority over them. These letters are also, every single one of them, written to refute Paulist Doctrines. Then we have the puzzling circumstance, that Peter, who is supposed to be the head of the Messianic Church was inexplicably exiled from Jerusalem to die in Rome. What would the leader of the Jewish Church be doing amongst the Gentiles? Indeed, this is what led to both his and Paul’s executions. Paul had been under the impression that the Gentile Church was his exclusive property, so when Peter began to make his own inroads among the Gentiles, on the Italian Peninsula, it instigated a turf war, and rioting between the factions of Peter and Paul began to disturb even the Roman Capital. So Nero had them suppressed. We are told that Nero was persecuting Christians, but I would rather suppose he was simply maintaining law and order and doing his best to rid the World of a couple of dangerous predators.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

connect the dots, did we?
Then why did you get a conspiracy theory, & I get a Church in the verge of exploding all over the Roman Empire? A church that tried to help the widows & orphans & chose leaders as the need arose, a church that had Saul (Paul) join, after his encounter with Jesus (& go to the Gentiles), & if you read what happened to Ananias & Sapphira, you will see that they lied, they said that they gave all to the church, yet it was only part, they could have given any part or none, they died because they lied to the Holy Spirit, Peter had nothing to do with it

Oh & unlike RCC doctrine, Peter was an equal with the others at Jerusalem

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's all a bunch of bullshit anyway, so I don't see why it's such a problem...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okay, what you are saying is that it was okay for Peter to kill a couple of people whom he was extorting money from when they said they gave everything but were only suspected of holding back some money from somebody who they could reasonably suppose was a crazy cult leader who was threatening them. Do you really think church leader should be killing people for not meeting financial quotas? Yes, you say it was the Holy Spirit who killed them, and NOT for holding out, but for lying, but honestly, if the Early Church was going to cover up for Peter, wouldn't turning this ordinary murder into a Supernatural Miracle be the way they would go. I tried to explain that away by insisting that Christ never used murder as a miracle, and that Peter was capable of no other miracle, and so it was hardly reasonable to suppose that the Holy Spirit would suddenly turn into a Death Force simply because Peter had trouble making his boat payments that month. Also, consider what any jury would believe if any modern cult leader would defend murders committed in his own private offices along the same lines -- that after the victims would not hand over all of their worldly possession, it was the Spirit of God Himself that took retribution on them -- as though God had reduced Himself to being the Enforcer for an Extortion Operation. Now, if we would not believe such a claim in a modern context, why do we believe it in an ancient one. Particularly since the people then did not believe it either, but immediately clamored for new Leadership and got it in the person of Stephen, who was also soon murdered -- but murdered in public and so Peter could not use that Holy Spirit story again.

 

What you do is assert that it is 'bullshit', but what I do is point out the inherent inplausibilities and inconsistencies. It is fine that you were able to dumbly intuit that the scriptural accounts were not entirely reliable, but it is deplorable that you apparently are intellectually unable to explain exactly why, and I would think you would be more appreciative of somebody who could. Also, it may be that you are dismissing everything that has anything to do with Religion, also without being able to in any way explain yourself. The advantage of being able to explain one's reasoning is that it forces one to retain a hint of respect for those things which we can find no cause to deny.

 

why would he need to explain himself, when it's as plain as the nose on your face.
he's not the one asserting something inplausible, you are.
so he has every right to condemn and deny, in anyway he see fit.
if you dont like it, then you only need to put him on your ignore list.

 

Again, all assertion and no argument. You guys are about as intellectual as barking dogs.

 

atheist dont make assertion only the religious do.
your the one making an assertion, are you not.
your the one asserting a story about fictious people,
if you posted I iota of evidence, for their existence the you would not get the remarks you get.
both hapsberg and geeser have just stated fact, it's because you have your head in a fantasy world, that makes you blind to reality.
I would prefer to be a barking dog, than a mindless amoeba.

 

Hilarious. That is an assertion.

 

how so?.
an assertion is something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof.
this is fact.
a fact is Knowledge or information based on real occurrences determined by evidence.
in the regard to god and religion, which this is hence why we on a religion forum,
religious people assert a god exists, atheist dont.

 

welcome moses, your funny, you obviously dont understand science forums.

 

Its quite odd to see people so smart, who write very well, who use unnecessary words to display there literacy, very well trained in constructing words as if making the reader seem he is learning from one who is wise. Yet the blindness is clear. One who learns from the wize can see those who are deaf, dumb, blind, and naked as if they are lifting up there skirts to reveal there shame as if in pride.
------Fear the Lord that is the beginning of all wisdom.

----P.S. When reading the Word ask the Lord to just simply open the eyes of your heart, and the book becomes a new one!

 

I just have to answe this, because it was so fucking stupid... Morron...

Of course anyone can make assertions, not only religious people... fag...

 

Victor: how can you say it's stupid, it seems clear to me, he was'nt saying it was just religious people in general who make assertions, but on a religious forum they are the only ones who make assertions.

 

Do tell me.. why should one 'fear' the lord? Is he evil?

 

You cannot intellectualise the bible, therefore your assertions Mr. Volont, are bullshit.

The bible can only be interpreted through the holy spirit (ahem), but seriously, it's the only way, but you got to have faith.

Therefore, give it up or get religion and let the spirit guide your thoughts, not your brain; leave that for maths.

Personally, I've been there, done it, don't want to do it again.

 

Because asserting that a god exist is needed for any atheist wanting to have a debate with relgious people. Otherwise, you assert god doesn't exist, and then a disscussion wouldn't be possible, therefore atheists has to assert he exists, just to be able to argue against his existence.. If you understand what I mean...

 

I've never come across an atheist asserting that god exist, just discussing a god does not mean you believe it exists, we could be discussing fairies or santa just as easily.
so just because I dont believe something, I not allowed to talk about, sorry I dont think so.

 

Read the first quote, asserting something is not believing something.

 

What!

So now your saying, that all those who assert a god exists, dont actually believe it.