SECRET Revelation of Peter (ancient Syriac vs Ethiopian)

a reply to: irenialilivenka

Yay! The Pdf has finally come through...but at 140 pages, I'll be back later.

originally posted by: Anaana
a reply to: irenialilivenka

Yay! The Pdf has finally come through...but at 140 pages, I'll be back later.

Awesome!

I find it very strange that someone chooses to make an attempt at making me seem like a moron for being aware of something that person is not.

Usually the polite and humble thing to do is disagree and go on about your business. In the case of calling me stupid or something similar for saying that Paul was pro slavery, a fact he himself admitted to, as if I am unable to comprehend something I have proven that what I said IS true.

So am I still stupid?

I like to think not.

I am smart enough not to insult people who are more well informed and educated than myself, or less. What good does it do?

I would look like a jerk number 1.

Number 2 the person leveling insults sits in that chair because emotions took precedent over factual knowledge.

Paul WAS everything I said.

Take the humble road next time rags.

a reply to: irenialilivenka

I am still ploughing through it, it is really heavy going and the seven wars so repetitive, but as a piece of revelatory literature, fascinating. Totally militant too, which is making me wonder, I am not even half way through and already I've lost count of how many times the phrase "put to the sword" and variations thereof, comes up. It does somewhat correspond to Revelations - he who lives by the sword will die by the sword - but not entirely.

As I said, still ploughing on, but I'd be interested in what you thought about the militancy of the text, particularly in relation to who the intended audience was.

a reply to: Anaana

The pdf I got was 102 pages, I wonder if we got the same MS.?

Maybe you can give me a link to what you are reading which sounds different from the pdf I gave you. I can't find the word sword anywhere and 140 pages is longer than the 102 mine has, half being the MSS.

I am going to download it again to make sure.

originally posted by: Anaana
a reply to: irenialilivenka

I am still ploughing through it, it is really heavy going and the seven wars so repetitive, but as a piece of revelatory literature, fascinating. Totally militant too, which is making me wonder, I am not even half way through and already I've lost count of how many times the phrase "put to the sword" and variations thereof, comes up. It does somewhat correspond to Revelations - he who lives by the sword will die by the sword - but not entirely.

As I said, still ploughing on, but I'd be interested in what you thought about the militancy of the text, particularly in relation to who the intended audience was.

I am wondering if we are reading the same book as I can't find what you are describing. Is everything in the op in what you are reading?

We'll figure that out later. The book of Rolls is interesting because it incorporates the Jewish Christian Apocrypha of Adam and Eve and calls Satan Satanael, which 2 Enoch is the only other book to do so.

And like Jubilees it has the sons of Seth as the Sons of God, which corresponds with the name of the Watchers in 1 Enoch.

Then it includes the seemingly earliest version of the Book of Clement, with Peter as his mentor. Clement is, besides 2 Enoch, the only author (if Clement is the author, the Epistle does not say) to mention the Phoenix and says that the bird is from Arabia.

But the 7 wars, I am unable to find or anything about the sword. Can you give me a little information on the pdf you downloaded because I downloaded my link again and still can't find that?

a reply to: Anaana

Alright, I we are on the same page.

The first few pages speak of a worm several times in different ways that remind me of 1 Clement and the Phoenix, when it dies it decays but a certain worm grows out of it into another Phoenix every 600 years. This was a Catholic Epistle and survives in one manuscript but it is also the first or second oldest Bible in the world and features Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas too.

Revelation of Peter is decidedly Trinitarian and said to be a product of Egypt, the home of Mark who is Barnabas' cousins. Barnabas means "son of comfort" or "comforter" I would say and can also mean "son of the Prophet."

I have a strong suspicion Barnabas was a close relative and maybe brother, Joseph who was called a Levite because Mary had Levite blood and was of a Priestly family. In both the Apocryphal Clementina I gave you a link to already. Maybe it's the Infancy Gospel of James ot Thomas or one of the other four books on Mary in it.

But it is anti Roman and probably went through Arian hands. They were supposedly suspicious of Paul and probably go back to the Jewish Christians of Egypt and Mark was from Egypt or at least lived there in Clements time. It is not Gnostic at all as the literary style is simple but eloquent and skilled. It must be early second century and it might have some late additions as theology developed that deified Jesus.

I say that because the Clementine H and R don't deify Jesus but he is a powerful "True Prophet" and "Christ" or Messiah, considered to mean "King" by Clement.

So I say if it is anti Roman but pro Catholic it is ante Nicene for sure. I think the wars described are more literal sounding than John's Revelation and the descriptions of hell more horrific.

It's a dark book. I forgot how dark, I must have just skimmed it or have been reading the fragmentary Ethiopian version because the wars are new to me I only remember the vivid descriptions of hell and ultimate revelation that hell is not permanent (hard to find version has this).

I was hyped up when I read the comment about not revealing this to Paul and went right to that part so I missed a little, I'm glad you mentioned it although I don't understand the discrepancy in pages but it is not impossible you chose a different type of file than pdf or something. As long as you see a MS. at the end that is much of the pages of the 100 or so in the book it is the same.

Gonna finish it now.

a reply to: irenialilivenka

Yeah, the 140 pages, as it turns outs, was mostly made up on photos of the translated text, so not nearly as much to get through as I was thinking there would be, but still, as you say, it's a very dark text. I definately agree with you on the trinitarianism, however I did get the odd whiff of gnosticism too, not directly, what I felt, reading it, you could see how gnosticism may have been a reaction to it. Does that make sense? Particularly, in terms of those who were single and without issue would be the better off. The text isn't gnostic but could it turn people gnostic by following the instruction? See what I mean?

The bugger is that I obviously got so caught up in the hell and damnation of it that I completely missed the bit about Paul...doh!

a reply to: Anaana

That makes sense.

Probably influenced by the Gnostics to adopt the Trinity, it was attractive abroad, but I doubt that it is part of the autograph, as the H and R of Clement is not Trinitarian, Jesus is the True Prophet and Messiah in that.

Such an oddity. So many different versions of one religion, all better than the mainstream version, rendered heretical by their nemesis the Romans, religion thiefs that they were.

originally posted by: Anaana
a reply to: irenialilivenka

Yeah, the 140 pages, as it turns outs, was mostly made up on photos of the translated text, so not nearly as much to get through as I was thinking there would be, but still, as you say, it's a very dark text. I definately agree with you on the trinitarianism, however I did get the odd whiff of gnosticism too, not directly, what I felt, reading it, you could see how gnosticism may have been a reaction to it. Does that make sense? Particularly, in terms of those who were single and without issue would be the better off. The text isn't gnostic but could it turn people gnostic by following the instruction? See what I mean?

The bugger is that I obviously got so caught up in the hell and damnation of it that I completely missed the bit about Paul...doh!

Exact opposite of what I did the first time.

originally posted by: irenialilivenka
Such an oddity. So many different versions of one religion, all better than the mainstream version, rendered heretical by their nemesis the Romans, religion thiefs that they were.

I think that in the early days, those that sought to segregate themselves, particularly in conjunction with celebacy, from society were treated as enemies of the state because if you're not producing cannon fodder you're not doing your job as a "good citizen". Such groups who chose not to engage in sexual reproduction or property ownership were generally viewed with suspicion and as a threat to the homogeneous state, and therefore heretical.