Religion can make you a better person?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Akragon

 

Or maybe Peter was a Roman the whole time? A certain Roman named Paul? That's what I believe. If Luke was Plutarch and Luke wrote Acts, then he could have changed Peter's name to Paul. Plutarch did write a book called "Parallel Lives" after all.

They couldn't have Peter writing all of these letters to important Roman people, that would look suspicious, so they changed his name. In my opinion.

edit on 9-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

I admit you have some interesting theories... most of them are based on speculation, but at least you're curious and don't just blindly accept everything you're told.

Its quite obvious peter was a coward... And Paul had a ton of influence over other people...

clearly it would only take a simple threat for peter to fall for deception...

Something like "we killed God in the flesh, we can get you too"

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Peter was in on it! Peter's name was Cephas, which means rock in Aramic. There was another man named Caiaphas who was the main person behind Jesus' capture. Caiaphas is also "rock" in Aramic. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Peter is a known liar according to the gospels, he lied about "laying down his life" for Jesus. We all know how that turned out... denial, denial, denial. He obviously never intended to die for Jesus, which is why he denied knowing him.

Caiaphas was a Roman appointed high priest (Pharisee), Paul was also a Roman Pharisee. See the connection yet?

Another interesting connection I found. Caiaphas had a brother named Theophilus, Luke addressed his gospel and Acts to someone named Theophilus. Was Luke sending his works to one of the brothers of the man behind Jesus' capture?


One theory on who this Theophilus that Luke wrote to is:

A growing belief[4] points to Theophilus ben Ananus, High Priest of the Temple in Jerusalem from 37-41 In this tradition Theophilus would have been both a kohen and a Sadducee. That would make him the son of Annas and brother-in-law of Caiaphas, raised in the Jewish Temple.

Wiki

More and more evidence is piling up...

Something else that connects Paul and Peter, in my opinion:

Before his conversion, Paul, then known as Saul, was a "zealous" Pharisee who "intensely persecuted" the followers of Jesus. Some scholars argue that Paul was a member of the "Zealot" party.

Wiki

So Paul was possibly a part of the "Zealot" party. There was another man who was considered a "zealot" and his name was Simon (the Zealot). He was one of the twelve apostles yet we know next to nothing about him other than his name.

Simon was Peter's original name, fitting that there was another Simon among the twelve who was called "the zealot". What was his zeal based on? We know nothing about him. Maybe he was really Paul/Peter the zealot?

There is a person named Judas the Zealot who is identified with Simon the Zealot. Whether that means they are identified as the same person or not, I don't know. But what I do know is that Judas Iscariot's fathers name was Simon Iscariot. Could Simon/Judas the zealot(s) be the same people as Simon/Judas Iscariot? Possibly.

My main point is that there is evidence that supports Paul and Peter being the same person and Peter being the one who betrayed Jesus, not Judas. You just have to hunker down with an open mind and "seek" it to find it.


ETA: Another interesting fact. Simon the Zealot is thought to have been cut in half by a saw, which is why he is usually represented with a saw in his hand. I think this could be a hint toward Simon (Peter) being split into two people, a.k.a. Paul and Peter.