The Nag Hammadi Codices Conspiracy: the Apocalypse of Peter

Absolutely crucial to the preservation of the multi-billion dollar economic interests of Christianity, Inc. is the insistence that the Apocalypse of Peter is not in any way an authentic representation of the either the Words or the Teaching of Jesus—which is one of the reasons that it is insisted, apparently on Doctrinal reasons alone, that the Apocalypse of Peter was written in the “third century”; for which, however, no other evidence is cited on page 373 of The Nag Hammadi Library in English by James Robinson (Copyright 1978, 1988 by E. J. Brill).

Thus, there has been a universal “conspiracy of silence” with regards to the Apocalypse of Peter by the “beast of the earth” Christian religious ‘authorities’.

And, predictably, the “dragon” media also has no interest in this document either.

(And, it is important to understand, also, that, in the Revelation of John Chapter 13:11, the “beast of the earth” is described as “speaking with the voice of the dragon”; in other words, the Jewish, Christian and Muslim religious ‘authorities’ speak with the voice of the media (which, esoterically, is to be understood as the consciousness of the ‘thinker’ ‘speaking with the voice’ of the duality created by the ‘movement’ of self-reflection.)

In any case, the following statements from the Apocalypse of Peter are crucial to the explanation of the differences between the Doctrines taught by the Gnostic followers of Jesus, and the Pharisaical, pagan metaphysical doctrines of Paul taught, instead, by the official Christian religious establishment:

1) “And they praise the men of the propagation of falsehood, those who will come after you. AND THEY WILL CLEAVE TO THE NAME OF A DEAD MAN, THINKING THAT THEY WILL BECOME PURE. BUT THEY WILL BECOME GREATLY DEFILED AND THEY WILL FALL INTO A NAME OF ERROR, AND INTO THE HAND OF AN EVIL AND CUNNING MAN AND A MANIFOLD DOGMA, AND THEY WILL BE RULED HERETICALLY.

Commentary:

“They will cleave to the name of a dead man” refers to Jesus.

“An evil and cunning man” is the Pharisee Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles.

The “name of error” is Christianity.

“Manifold dogma” refers to the Egyptian-Pharisaical doctrine of the physical raising of a dead body from the grave, the doctrines of pagan metaphysics (such as the existence of an ‘eternal’ metaphysical ‘soul’, a metaphysical ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’, and such floridly psychotic doctrines as the ‘Rapture’ and the return of Jesus ‘on a white horse out of the sky’); and such idolatrous doctrines as the deification of Jesus and the doctrine of ‘vicarious atonement’.

2) “Some who do not understand mystery speak of things which they do not understand, but they will boast that the mystery of the Truth is theirs alone.”

Commentary:

This refers, first of all, to those who teach the doctrine of the “resurrection” as the physical raising of a dead body from the grave; not having received the Revelation of the Memory of Creation or the revelation of the memories of previous lives.

But it also refers to anyone who, for example, not having received either the Vision of the “Son of man” or the Revelation of the “resurrection”, claim to be able to ‘interpret’ and understand the Revelation of John.

3) “But many others, who oppose the Truth and are the messengers of error, will set up their error and their law against these pure thoughts of mine, as looking out from one perspective, thinking that good and evil are from one (source). They do business in my word. And they will propagate harsh fate.”

Commentary:

“thinking that good and evil are from one (source)” refers to the failure to understand the differentiation of the dualistic consciousness, created by the ‘movement’ of self-reflection, from the non-dualistic consciousness Created ‘by and in the image of God’. That is, it is the non-dualistic consciousness which conveys the Truth. And it is the dualistic consciousness which is the origin of conflict, violence and evil. (See, also, the writings of J. Krishnamurti.)

“they do business in my word” means that they sell their teaching as if it is the Teaching of Jesus; when Jesus specifically commanded his original followers not to sell the Teaching.

“And they will propagate a harsh fate.” The Holocaust of millions of Jews is a very direct consequence of the lies and errors of aPauline Christian theology.

For further information, see:

www.gnosis.org...

Michael Cecil

Question 1:


Why doesn't Clement of Rome site ONCE the "Apocalypse of Peter" in any of his writings?

Question 2:

Why does Clement of Rome quote extensively from Paul's epistles, and BOTH 1 Peter and 2 Peter in his writings?

Question 3:

Why do Gnostics fail to realize that if ANYONE on the planet would know if 2 Peter were a forgery it would be Clement of Rome who was Peter's DIRECT disciple for over a decade???????????????






It's well known why you Gnostics hate 2 Peter with a passion..

It both SPECIFICALLY condemns the Gnostic heresies and legitimizes all of Paul's epistles and his ministry. For everyone to see, 2 Peter 3:15-16 below:


"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

Gnostic Gospels (2nd-4th Century)

Clement of Rome

Gnostic Hersey

Re NOTurTypical:

From your obvious background in zaddikim militant extremism, it's not surprising, that you use carefully chosen propaganda material, with little or no support from neutral historical sources. Your communication platform is so narrow, that you have to define practically everyone not agreeing with you as 'heretics'.

Should anyone be interested enough to take a closer look at the 'sons of light' attitude you present, it's just to read acts and epistles in context, and from that probably conclude, that the words: 'Our beloved brother Paul' (Romans 2 3:15) most likely is a forgery.

It's up to each individual to do this and form his/her own opinion. And while acts and epistles are rather boring and edited (IMO), they are fortunately not longer than the average attention-span can manage.

Do you even want to respond to the fact that Clement of Rome, (Peter's direct disciple), quotes extensively from Paul's epistles and the book of 2nd Peter??

Do you even want to respond to the fact Clement never mentions the "Apocylpse of Peter"?

Does it occur to you the "Apoclypse of Peter" wasn't quoted by Peter's disciple because it yet DIDN'T EXIST and was written both after Peter's death and Clement's???

Or is it your assumption Peter forgot to mention to his disciple in over a decade that Paul was teaching heresies?? Perhaps at the same time Peter forgot to mention to his disciple that he never wrote 2 Peter???


You have some questions to ponder and answer...

I consider the alleged writings of Clement as part of the pauline hoax.

As you should know by now, my interest in inter-'christian' quibblings is minimal. I'm just wary of any potentially violent extremism, presented by frustrated and militant groups of wanna-be prophets.

Mankind's best chance to survive is to establish a delicate balance between 'the one and only truth' hotheads(some of which would press the big red button, rather than live in co-existence). This is called liberal democracy.

So my suggestion is: Find an island somewhere and shoot it out with neo-nazis, stalinists, militant atheists or whatever.

Or broaden your communication basis.

reply to post by bogomil


Ummm, try again. Clement was not Paul's disciple..

He was PETER'S disciple.

NoturT: You wrote:

"Ummm, try again. Clement was not Paul's disciple..

He was PETER'S disciple."

You mean: He was alledgely Peter's disciple. And so what? Paulinism is so saturated with falsification, that the only certain thing is, that a book and some letters were written once upon a time.

Maybe containing a few reminiscences of earlier, truer works, maybe mostly made up. If they could lie about Peter liking Paul, they could lie about Clements writings also.

As one of the early popes said: "We've had much benefit from the myth of Jesus".

Originally posted by bogomil


You mean: He was alledgely Peter's disciple. And so what?

You err yet again. Not 'allegedly', he was Peter's direct disciple.. for over a decade. Timothy was Paul's disciple, Polycarp was John's disciple and so forth. All the writings. and epistles of the Apostolic fathers are a matter of public record, and date to the first century AD. (At least 100 years before the gnostic gospels appeared.)

And so what? So his writings destroy the gnostic claims that A: 2 Peter was not written by Peter, (Clement quotes from it extensively), and B: his writings destroy the gnostic claim that there was a rift between Peter and Paul or that Paul taught things contrary to Peter. (Clement quotes extensively from the Pauline epistles as well.)

Paulinism is so saturated with falsification, that the only certain thing is, that a book and some letters were written once upon a time.

Hardly, re-read 2 Peter 3:15-16. Paul is fully endorsed by the other 12 disciples. And is not rebuked by the Apostolic fathers in their writings. The ONLY people who hate Paul's teachings are unbelievers, heretics, Judaizers, the Pharisees, and Rome. Nero had Paul beheaded after he (Nero) burned down 4 of 14 districts of Rome starting with Circus Maximus.

Maybe containing a few reminiscences of earlier, truer works, maybe mostly made up. If they could lie about Peter liking Paul, they could lie about Clements writings also.

Wow you're ignorant to church history and what books/letters were heretical and which were not. Your beloved gnostic scriptures were not even written until the 2nd - 4th centuries. Hundreds of years after the 'allegeded' authors were dead. The gnostics wrote their gospels then attributed apostles names to the to make them seem credible to the layperson.

As one of the early popes said: "We've had much benefit from the myth of Jesus".

Hey, I never claimed there are no wolves in sheep's clothing.

Are you going to get around to answering the questions given to you or do you want to concede that you have none?

Hi NOT

I wondered, how long time it would take you to come back to square one and repeat yourself. You're quick.

You're still telling me, that you're right because you're right and I'm wrong, because I don't agree with you.

In my next post, I shall help you out a bit with this (it's like playing chess and for the fun of it switching sides), but for now I must bring you out of a great misconception, you have cooked up in your holy mind. You seem to be under the impression, that I'm putting up e.g. The Nag Hammadi manuscripts as a more true alternative to YOUR fairytale.

I'm not.

And btw, considering that you never answer any questions (being to busy preaching), you really can't demand, that I do. It's called megalomania, when someone puts up all the rules singlehandedly.

reply to post by bogomil


What are you talking about??? The post I began in this thread (the 2nd one from the top), was QUESTIONS. You responded to THAT post without answering a single one. The only sentence you have typed with a question mark was answered. It was 'So what?"

What scriptures or writings you need to sleep comfortably at night is irrelevant, this thread is about the "Apocalypse of Peter", it's right up there in the ol' thread title, take a peek. My post was in response to the OP, with questions based on the topic. You chimed in with your rant, and have went off course, replied to me, and yet in your reply to my questions failed to even answer any.

Is this your first day on internet forums?

reply to post by bogomil

You seem to be under the impression, that I'm putting up e.g. The Nag Hammadi manuscripts as a more true alternative to YOUR fairytale.

I'm not.

Then what are you doing here? This thread is ABOUT one of those manuscripts, the "Apocalypse of Peter."

Now now, cant we all just get along?! Hehe, it was very fun to read the back and forth in this thread! I have to say in my personal opinion that both christian doctrine and gnostic doctrine seem fishy, considering that the reach of tptb is far and wide, who's to say both christian doctrine and gnostic doctrine didn't come from them?

Re NOTurTypical

I believed, I already had answered you by saying that most pauline 'christianity' is a hoax. You mean an answer isn't an answer, until you like it.

Being on this thread doesn't require, that I consider the Nag Hammadi manuscripts 'true'.

reply to post by bogomil


Well, you're entitled to your opinions that's for sure, but sorry, myself, I trust what Peter has to say in the doctrine department. I can rest easy at night believing Peter knew true doctrine, knew who was a false teacher and who wasn't, and the apostolic fathers knew which epistles were authentic and which ones were not than I trust "gospels" written 1-3 hundred years later.

But that's just me.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

In response to all of the comments of NOTurTypical:

I seldom get the opportunity to watch any television shows. But I often see advertisements for certain shows.

There is one advertisement for a show called "King of Queens" in which the viewer is encouraged to learn "the language of Doug" (Heffernan), who is a major character in the sit-com.

There follow a number of clips of Doug Heffernan making a variety of guttural noises with no conceptual content whatsoever, while swinging his arms wildly, etc.

And I note a certain correspondence between "the language of Doug" and the comments of NOTurTypical on this thread.

I must admit that I am completely at a loss as to what to say.

Michael

reply to post by Michael Cecil

I must admit that I am completely at a loss as to what to say.

That's pretty much the response I was expecting when I submitted the questions to your OP.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Michael Cecil

 

I must admit that I am completely at a loss as to what to say.

That's pretty much the response I was expecting when I submitted the questions to your OP.

Well, one of the statements that Doug Heffernan makes in the "language of Doug" is "El Bingo."

Another is "AYayaAYYYAYAhhaYaaaaahhhhhh".

What is your response to either of those statements?

In other words, you have to appreciate my predicament here.

Michael

reply to post by Michael Cecil

What is your response to either of those statements?

I have two responses actually..

1: Red Herring


2: Appeal To Ridicule