Paul: Rome's version of the Trojan Horse

At least in my opinion he was. For those wondering who I'm talking about, I'm speaking of St. Paul of Tarsus, formerly Saul, one of the main people behind the founding of Christianity. He is the main character within the book of Acts.

Paul the Apostle (c. AD 5 – c. AD 67), also known as the Apostle Paul, Saint Paul and Saul of Tarsus,[3][4] is perhaps the most influential early Christian missionary and leader of the first generation of Christians. Among the many other apostles and missionaries involved in the spread of the Christian faith,[5] Paul is often considered to be one of the two most important people in the history of Christianity, and one of the greatest religious leaders of all time.[6] Almost half of the books of the New Testament are credited to his authorship.[5][7][8] He was responsible for spreading of the Gospel through early Christian communities across the Roman Empire. From the mid-30s to the mid-50s he established several churches in Asia Minor and at least three in Europe, including the church at Corinth.[6]

So Paul was a pretty important person during the first century, he was co-founder of the church along with Peter.

Paul wasn't a good guy the whole time though, in fact he was an avid persecutor of Jesus' earliest followers, going as far as to go from temple to temple asking their leaders contact him whenever Christians were near so that he could round them up and eventually kill them.

Before becoming a follower of Jesus, Paul zealously persecuted the newly-forming Christian church, trying to destroy it. He likely traveled from synagogue to synagogue, urging the punishment of Jews who accepted Jesus as the messiah.[5] He held the coats of those who stoned Stephen, the first Christian martyr, to death.[Acts 7:58; 8:1; 22:20] He also went from house to house, dragging both men and women Christian believers to prison.[8:3] He caused believers to be bound and probably tortured in an attempt to get them to deny their faith in Christ. When they refused, he voted to have them condemned to death.[6:10-11] [22:4,19]

Wiki

So what changed Paul's mind? Well, apparently he had a vision from Jesus himself telling him to to stop persecuting his followers and to preach his gospel, claiming that Paul was a "chosen vessel" of god to carry his message.

Though Paul never met Jesus while alive, he quickly started claiming to be an "apostle" of Jesus after his so-called "vision". What's even better, he even started inserting his own doctrine into Jesus' message, claiming that the law prohibited women from talking while in church and claiming to be the "Father", even though Jesus specifically told his disciples not to call anyone but god their Father.

13. On your father:

Paul says:
1Cor.4
[15] For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
Phlm.1
[10] I appeal to you for my child, Ones'imus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment.

Jesus says:
Matt.23
[9] And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

Source (I encourage everyone to take a look at this link, it is very eye-opening)

For someone who truly believed Jesus was the messiah and who was a true apostle, he sure did have a tendency to contradict his god, a lot. The link I provided goes into more detail.

So now that I have introduced you to Paul and who he was and what he did, I will move onto the main point of this thread: the true identity of Paul. Paul was a Roman and claimed to be "a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee", the same sect that Jesus calls a "brood of vipers" at one point.

(Side note: Paul was supposedly bitten by a viper in Acts 28 and suffered no ill-effects from it. Whether that points toward anything or not is for you to decide.)

Why would Jesus choose a Roman Pharisee who went around persecuting his true followers to carry his message? According to Jesus, bad trees cannot bear good fruit, so why would Jesus choose one of the most rotten trees to bear good fruit? That and his Roman citizenship should raise some serious red flags for anyone who is a critical thinker.

Peter and Paul share many similarities, for starters they founded the church together and both served stints in prison only to be miraculously rescued, Peter by an angel and Paul by an earthquake. They also both had name changes shortly after meeting/receiving a vision from Jesus. Peter's name was originally Simon, and Paul's was Saul.

Jesus renamed Simon Cephas (translated: Peter) shortly after they met. Cephas means "rock" in Aramic. There was another man whose name was Caiaphas, he was the main person behind the plot to capture and kill Jesus. Caiaphas also means "rock" in Aramic. Coincidence? I don't think so.

There was another Simon among the Twelve who was called "The Zealot".

The apostle called Simon Zelotes, Simon the Zealot, in Luke 6:15 and Acts 1:13; and Simon Kananaios or Simon Cananeus ("Simon" signifying שמעון "hearkening; listening", Standard Hebrew Šimʿon, Tiberian Hebrew Šimʿôn), was one of the most obscure among the apostles of Jesus. Little is recorded of him aside from his name. A few pseudepigraphical writings were connected to him, and Jerome does not include him in De viris illustribus.

Wiki

Why is there little to no information about this man? He was an apostle of Jesus, you would think they would have fleshed him out a bit more than just mentioning him by name. Also, what is the title "zealot" based off of? Like I said, little to nothing is known about him.

I believe there is a reason next to nothing is known about him, and that is because he never existed, he was invented by Rome. Why? Hang in there.

Now back to Paul for a second.

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

Paul was possibly a member of a party called the "Zealots". Remember Simon the Zealot? He was supposedly sawed in half, which is why he is sometimes depicted with a saw in his hand. I believe this points toward something, but what?

I believe Simon the Zealot being cut in half represents (Simon) Peter and Paul (a zealot) being the same person.

Luke, the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts. Acts is the book that recounts the adventures of Paul and his fellow "apostles". Both Luke and Acts are addressed to a man named Theophilus. Who is this man?

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.

Source

A connection to Caiaphas, the man behind Jesus' capture. Interesting. Caiaphas was a Roman appointed high priest (Pharisee).

(continued)

Paul was a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee, Caiaphas can claim the same thing. Caiaphas' name meant "rock" in Aramic, so did Peter's (Cephas). See where I'm going with this yet?

Christian tradition hold that Judas Iscariot is the one who betrayed Jesus, I claim that Judas never existed and that Peter is the one who betrayed Jesus. Judas' fathers name was Simon, which happened to be Peter's original name.

There is another Judas, Judas the Zealot.

The name Judas the Zealot (Judas Zelotes) is mentioned in the Epistle of the Apostles (Epistula Apostolorum), written in the 2nd century. He is usually identified with the Apostle Simon the Zealot, with whom he shares a surname, or with the Apostle Jude.

Wiki

So another Judas who is connected to a Simon. Interesting. Could they be the same people? I say yes, they are the same people, possibly all the same person. Specifically Peter, a.k.a. Simon/Judas the Zealot, a.k.a. Paul, a.k.a. Caiaphas, the apostle who infiltrated the Christian movement and betrayed Jesus and changed his message.

Why would they need to do this? To cover up Peter's betrayal of Jesus and Rome's infiltration into the movement. They very well couldn't have had Peter writing to all the important Roman officials, that would look suspicious, so they changed his name from Peter to Paul, and others including Judas and Caiaphas.

Peter was a Roman spy and Pharisee who masqueraded as a true apostle of Jesus in order to destroy the movement from the inside out.

Jesus even calls Peter Satan at one point, only five verses after declaring him the "rock of the church"! STRANGE! Once Paul comes into the picture in Acts, Peter all but disappears. Coincidence? Also, the only evidence of where Peter was during Paul's ministries comes from Paul himself, no one else mentions where he is at. Another coincidence? I don't think so.

Leonardo da Vinci even painted this into "The Last Supper", where he has Peter leaning toward John/Mary with a disembodied hand coming from behind him at John/Mary's neck, he's even holding a knife behind his back, signifying his betrayal. He also has an "evil" look on his face. He's also cut in half by Judas, which in my opinion signifies Judas, Peter, and Paul all being the same person. John traveled with Paul during his missions, the disembodied hand at the neck of John signifies John being held captive by Paul/Peter in my opinion.

Do you think I'm on to something here? Or am I seeing connections that aren't really there? Feel free to criticize me all you like, I welcome it.

Thanks for reading, let me know what you think. If anyone has any questions or thinks I haven't covered enough of the details, just let me know so I can try to answer.

Acts 20
4 He was accompanied by Sopater son of Pyrrhus from Berea, Aristarchus and Secundus from Thessalonica, Gaius from Derbe, Timothy also, and Tychicus and Trophimus from the province of Asia. 5 These men went on ahead and waited for us at Troas.

Paul eventually meets up with a man named Sopater who was the son of a man named Pyrrhus. Him and others go ahead to Troas to wait for Paul. Troas is commonly associated with Troy and is located not far from the site of Troy.

There was another Pyrrhus, a Greek soldier who fought in the Trojan war. He was also one of the soldiers who hid in the trojan horse. This is a clear reference to the fall of Troy by trickery.

"Pyrrhus also sent some agents, who pretended to be Macedonians. These spies spread the suggestion that now the time had come to be liberated from the harsh rule of Demetrius by joining Pyrrhus, who was a gracious friend of soldiers."

Source

This is relevant because the passage where Paul meets up with Sopater son of Pyrrhus is called "Through Macedonia and Greece". The Greek Pyrrhus sent spies into Macedonia, just as Rome sent Paul into the Christian movement. Luke was trying to tell us something here.

Another funny thing... the KJV bible doesn't have the name Pyrrhus in that passages, they removed it! You can check for yourself, it's not there. Why? Because it's obvious to those who look.

Luke shares lots of similarities with a historian named Plutarch from the same time period. Look here to see them. Plutarch wrote a book called "Pyrrhus: The Fool of Hope", yet another connection to the trojan horse.

Acts 14
Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker.

Yet another reference to Greek mythology. Why was Paul called Hermes?

Hermes (pron.: /ˈhɜrmiːz/; Greek : Ἑρμῆς) was an Olympian god in Greek religion and mythology, son of Zeus and the Pleiade Maia. He was second youngest of the Olympian gods.

Hermes was a god of transitions and boundaries. He was quick and cunning, and moved freely between the worlds of the mortal and divine, as emissary and messenger of the gods,[1] intercessor between mortals and the divine, and conductor of souls into the afterlife. He was protector and patron of travelers, herdsmen, thieves,[2] orators and wit, literature and poets, athletics and sports, invention and trade.

Paul was the messenger chosen by Jesus (god) and also dictated how people got into the afterlife just like Hermes.

So what about Hermes being the protector of thieves, orators, wit, and literature? Could he be those as well? Yes! He stole Jesus' message (thief), changed the message (orator/wit), and wrote half of the NT (literature).

In some myths he is a trickster, and outwits other gods for his own satisfaction or the sake of humankind.

Paul was a trickster who outwitted Jesus and overtook his message and changed it. Pretty spot on so far.

His attributes and symbols include the herma, the rooster and the tortoise, purse or pouch, winged sandals, winged cap, and his main symbol was the herald's staff, the Greek kerykeion or Latin caduceus which consisted of two snakes wrapped around a winged staff.

So Hermes had attributes of a rooster and pouch/purse. Peter denied Jesus three times before a rooster crew, and Judas is often depicted with a pouch signifying the 30 pieces of silver he betrayed Jesus for.

If Paul is Peter and Judas as I suspect, then those attributes line up perfectly with the three actually being one.

The story of Paul raising Eutychus from the dead also lines up with Homer's story of Elpenor from "The Odyssey". "The Odyssey" is the sequel to "The Iliad" which dealt with the Trojan war. Yet another reference to one of the greatest tricks ever played: the trojan horse.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


This is VERY intriguing to say the least.

I will have to come back to this thread when I have more time to let it all sink in, but you have a great thread going here.

Very well done.

And another reference to Greek mythology:

Acts 28
11 After three months we put out to sea in a ship that had wintered in the island. It was an Alexandrian ship with the figurehead of the twin gods Castor and Pollux.

Why was it necessary to tell us what kind of ship it was and what the figurehead was? Maybe he was trying to tell us something?

So It was an Alexandrian ship? The area called Troas that I mentioned earlier contains a city that was called Alexandria Troas. Another reference to Troy.

Who are Castor and Pollux?

In Greek and Roman mythology, Castor[1] and Pollux[2] or Polydeuces[3] were twin brothers, together known as the Dioscuri.[4] Their mother was Leda, but Castor was the mortal son of Tyndareus,the king of Sparta , and Pollux the divine son of Zeus, who raped Leda in the guise of a swan . Though accounts of their birth are varied, they are sometimes said to have been born from an egg, along with their twin sisters Helen of Troy and Clytemnestra.

So they were twin brothers of Helen of Troy. Yet ANOTHER reference to Troy. Interesting.

Another thing: Troy is located in modern-day Turkey. Guess where Paul is supposedly from? Turkey! Another "coincidence".

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Jesus even calls Peter Satan at one point, only five verses after declaring him the "rock of the church"! STRANGE!

Not so strange. He called him Petros (movable rock). He then said, upon this rock (Petra), he would build the church. Petra is the foundation that cannot be moved--the Chief Cornerstone. Peter is the rock that would be rolled away to reveal the empty tomb. Why? Law holds some parties harmless.

When a contract is known by some, but not others, the ones that were deceived into signing are held harmless. The contract is reimbursed for damages in an agreement to hold the others free from the responsibility for any liability or damage that might arise out of the transaction. In other words, this is the veil over the temple. We are unaware of what takes place when the wool is pulled over our eyes. The sheep are having wool sheered from them. The wool (sin) is then washed and returned to the sheep as a new Robe (Body), but the one killed in place of the sheep is the scapegoat. The wolf in sheep's clothing is the one that bears the debt and is then promptly killed. This was pictured by the replacement sacrifice given to Abraham, formally known as Abram. Again, another name change.

When Peter caught 153 fish (John 21), he was told to fish on the 'Right' side of the boat. This is the Hebrew version of right and wrong. Left (Liberal) is wrong. Right (conservative) is correct. The same is true today. The philosophy of Ayn Rand is Liber Al. It is objectivism. The true mindset of the conservative is Altruism. This has been lost as threads mix. What did Jesus tell Peter after catching 153 fish? To know, you need to see why 153 is important.

153 is the 17th triangular number and represents the square root of 2. It's a ratio of 1:1.415, the same one that makes the Vesica Pisces. Pythagoras called this the 'measure of the fish.' It's the difference between unity and multiplicity, the very reason the error occurred in the emanation of creation (See Adam Kadmon). Jesus told Peter to fish on the side of truth that creates unity (Altruism).

When Peter put a robe around him and entered the water (Being born again into the water - Baptism), he returned to the shore (Earth). Jesus asked him three times, "Do you Agape (divine love) me?" Peter replied, "I love (Family love) you. Jesus then said, "Then feed the sheep." When Peter was asked the third time, he knew what Jesus was implying. The denial of Christ three times is the sign of Jonah. Three days (3000 years) between the end of time and the first century. Each of the 1000 years, Peter (on the shore of Earth) is asked to serve humanity. Each time, he serves himself instead. Babylon is the scapegoat.

Two further items.

John 21

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18 Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”

What do you see in this ending passage to the 153 fish? When Peter was younger, he dressed himself and went where he wanted to go. Later in his life, he was dressed by others (Served instead of serving). His will to be moved by Satan into the left side of truth caused division in the world. Instead, he should have "FOLLOWED CHRIST."

Here is another artifact to consider.

POPE 112

When did Peter realize that Christ was telling him to repent? Between the 2nd and 3rd time he asked. The 3rd time was the one where Peter realized. What was Christ telling him to do after 2000 years?

Malache Prophecy of Popes. Last Pope coming by 2014. Check the News. Benedict is resigning.
112 Peter the Roman, who will Nourish the sheep in many tribulations; when they are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people. The end.

Revelation 18

18 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.

2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

Guess where Peter is right now? Rome. Along with every other unclean bird, it's a cage as the rock is rolled away to reveal the true Christ. They will be left inside the tomb. You must be born again and when the church is carried away to Earth II, the scapegoats are left here in the empty tomb. Baptism in the water is the key. You must be born in the water before you reach the spirit. John told them what would happen if they didn't repent.

Matthew 3

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

I am thankful we don't know the entire story as fact. Faith keeps us held harmless. We simply hope in the goodness of God and see the rest of the pieces fall into place.

Has Christ entered the temple at the start of the last day (Day of the Lord - 1000 years)?

Global Financial Meltdown Are the financial tables of the moneychangers turned to debt (turned over)? Do the peacemakers have any rest (Those selling doves have had their benches turned over)?

Pope Peter is coming to Rome this year. You will see this all happen quickly.

Why is is written in symbol and parable? Why is it so complicated? To keep hard hearts from hardening further. Perhaps some will repent. The same sun that melts wax also hardens clay.

This forum is not usually my normal hangout on ATS its outside my comfort zone really. But wow OP this is a very well put together post. Its amazing how you connected some of these stories S&F just for the hard work and applause for the interesting read.

Good luck with your thread.

Enoch, you need to try harder. You know partisanship has no place in the kingdom of the lord, yet you spout off and divide your "brothers"?
Well you got something right, and that is distinguishing the left and right, but apparently you haven't chose your path

reply to post by EnochWasRight


Peter wasn't reinstated until AFTER Jesus died. Those who think logically know that Jesus could have never rose from the dead, which in turn means that he could have never reinstated Peter.

Luke 22
31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

33 But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.”

This takes place at the last supper, right before Judas betrays Jesus. Funny that Jesus says that Satan was tempting Peter, not Judas!

So Jesus calls Peter Satan RIGHT AFTER calling him the rock, and then goes on to say that he is being tempted by Satan at the last supper... yet Judas ends up betraying him? That's a little bit weird if you ask me. Why would Jesus keep on hinting that Peter was Satan and even say Satan was tempting him only to turn around a few seconds later and choose Judas as the one possessed by Satan?

Also, Peter obviously wasn't ready to die for Jesus because he denied him three times. That shows that he is a KNOWN liar.

Another strange thing. When they go to arrest Jesus, Peter pulls his sword out and cuts the ear off of one of the guards, you would think that would bring HEAVY attention to Peter, yet while Jesus is having his trial, he ends up sitting with Roman soldiers at the trial!

Why would they let a guy who just cut a Roman soldiers ear off sit with the Roman soldiers? It doesn't make any sense.

As for the last pope, funny how the "prophecy" names the last pope as Peter the Roman. Peter was the first "pope" and since I believe he was also Paul, that would mean he was Peter a Roman.

Care to address anything else besides that one line of text?

This is the area of "The Last Supper" that I spoke of in the OP.

Notice how Judas seems to cut Peter in half. Why does Peter have such an evil look on his face and why is he holding a knife behind his back? Also, who is the disembodied hand coming from and why is it at the neck of John/Mary?

As I said in the OP, I think Judas cutting Peter in half represents him being Peter, while the left half with the knife represents Peter's betrayal of Jesus while the right half represents Paul (Peter) taking John hostage. John "traveled" with Paul during his missions.

Leonardo also hints at other stuff with his paintings. If you're interested, take a look at this thread.

My theory of Paul being Peter lines up with one of Plutarch's books that he wrote called Parallel Lives. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Plutarch shares LOTS of similarities with Luke. Fitting, because Luke wrote about the journeys of Paul, who in my opinion lived a "parallel life" with Peter.

LOL... I think theres a few holes In your theory my friend... but i'll leave that to the Christians

I do enjoy a good battle though... and if you're beating on Paul...

I surely have to help

Paul the first Heretic

S&F

reply to post by Akragon


Like what? Please let me know so I can work on filling them.

I'm not saying there aren't holes because there might be.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I wouldn't worry too much... The storm will come when you pick at the backbone of Christian Faith

Or should I say paulian faith?

*gasp*

I smell torches and pitchforks!

*dives for cover*

reply to post by Akragon


I'd rather hear about the holes in my theory from someone who isn't biased on the issue. Point them out please.

Don't take this as me saying you're wrong, because that's not what I'm saying. I'm genuinely curious about your take on it.

Also this is a good read too:

www.thenazareneway.com...

Luke, however, filled in many of the blanks Paul failed to mention in any of his letters to the churches. The problem is, Luke told three versions of Paul’s claimed conversion, and none of the three agree on the details:...

Remember: Luke wrote all three of these accounts! It matters not that he put two of the versions into the mouth of Saul, who was by then known as Paul. LUKE WROTE ALL THREE VERSIONS!....

Luke also wrote the following just four chapters before the first "Conversion" story:

Acts 5:3: "`Ananias,' Peter asked, `why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?'"

And Luke also mentioned the very important name, Pyrrhus:

Acts 20:4-6: "[Paul] was accompanied by Sopater, son of Pyrrhus of Beroea…these went ahead and were waiting for us at Troas…where we stayed for seven days."

One of the early translators did a strange thing with the name, Pyrrhus: He omitted it! And the King James Version did the same.

Who was Pyrrhus to the Greeks? Pyrrhus, The Fool of Hope, was a story Plutarch wrote and titled at about the same time Luke's gospel was being penned. It includes the following:

"Pyrrhus also sent some agents, who pretended to be Macedonians. These spies spread the suggestion that now the time had come to be liberated from the harsh rule of Demetrius by joining Pyrrhus, who was a gracious friend of soldiers."

Luke is accredited with much authoring of the New Testament, and it seems he put some codes in it to show, they were hijacked, Rome took over, the story has been changed.

reply to post by Unity_99


Yes, I've already covered those points, but thanks for reinforcing them.

Luke most certainly did hide codes in his works. He hid the sacred number 432 in the story of Mary and the prophetess Anna. Plutarch did the same thing in "Pyrrhus: Fool of Hope", where a trench measured 6x9x800. That equals out to 43,200

Also, the man who restored Paul's vision was named Ananias. There was another Ananias, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the man behind Jesus' capture and eventual crucifixion.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I agree with most of your statements about "Paul". I think Paul/Saul are actually the same name, just different languages, so there was no "name change".

Secondly, you say Peter and Paul were the leaders of the early church, but neglect to mention James, who is in charge at the Council of Jerusalem.


Mentioned later by another poster, was Peter's denial of Jesus three times. This refers to the "cockcrowing" incident. Cockcrowing, is actually a reference to a SPECIFIC time(2AM ,3AM, etc).

reply to post by EnochWasRight


In reference to John 21.

John 21
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18 Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”

So someone would eventually lead Peter by the hand?

Acts 22
10 “‘What shall I do, Lord?’ I asked.

“ ‘Get up,’ the Lord said, ‘and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.’ 11 My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because the brilliance of the light had blinded me.

So Jesus says that when Peter is older he will stretch his hand out and be led somewhere. Paul was led by hand to Damascus. Coincidence?