Leo Volont
Registered Senior Member
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.
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.