SECRET Revelation of Peter (ancient Syriac vs Ethiopian)

a reply to: irenialilivenka

Fact and fiction are sometimes hard to differentiate. I don't mind Paul actually, but my beliefs aren't in any way invested in his contributions, they are interesting reading, and significantly, they do provide a guide to administering the faith, which in my opinion is the reason for their primacy in catholic christianity. The Bible was, after all, never intended to be read by the lay members, therefore seen as instructions for priests, they make a little more sense.

I wasn't able to identify it from the Gelasian decree...which is one of the reasons I need to read the paper, because if it was heretical it wouldn't be listed as apocrypha...I don't think???

originally posted by: irenialilivenka
a reply to: Raggedyman

I don't see me taking you seriously if you would talk about something you just found out about as if you know its history. You don't seem like an Apocrypha guy.

It's a worthy topic, you can let fly all the negativity and I won't bother with you. Open your mind you don't have to be negative, it's just an ancient book that shows the rift between the Petrine and the Pauline facions.

Nothing to fuss over.

Taking me seriously, what about your assumption.
Paul is one of the most recognised historical figures from that century and you have offered one dodgy document that by historical standards is stupid.

Paul was a Pharisee, Jewish and you have him in Turkey worshiping idols
Common sense is not necessary to some people
You have him lying and manipulating people, it's stupid

a reply to: irenialilivenka

Oh no you are back again!

You still are not fooling any one. You will be banned again as you have for what somewhere around 100 times since Dec 2015.

Just go away already.

a reply to: Anaana

Apocryphal means secret or hidden away.

There is deuterocanonical Apocrypha in Catholic Bibles that is not heretical but anything outside of that is. Athanasius might be a better person to blame I honestly don't know much about the Gelasian decree tbh.

Athanasius was the messenger for whoever wanted to ban Apocryphal books, which didn't include the deuterocanon called today Apocrypha. The true definition is not heretical (which means choice or [right to] choose) so it can get confusing.

But to help you out, just Google Apocalypse of Peter and you will find it. It is mentioned in Church history that much I know for a fact.

In the Book of Rolls it's the 8th book, I will get you a link for that but the (Arabs call it the Book of Perfection) A. of Peter, book 8, is usually not published with it because at the time it was relatively unknown that Paul was such a creep and no Christian wants to hear that. That is my guess, but the Ethiopian scribes altered it and have had it for a long time. Syriac preserved the original and it is difficult to find information on, but the pdf does a great job of that.

Jubilees, Enoch and other books were preserved bt Ethiopians so we can thank them for that. My biggest problem with Paul is that he is an admitted liar, proud of it, and pro slavery. Misogynistic, contentious, collaborative traitor and more terrible qualities for a religious figure. Preached submission to world leaders as equal to submission to God.

Who cares if he would be a despicable person by modern (and by ancient Jewish Nazarene) standards, right?

I ain't down with that.

Each their own though.

a reply to: Anaana

Here is the Arabic Book of Rolls.

Regardless of the date of extant MSS. which all but the full A. of Peter have been translated for quite some time, everything in it is from older Christian traditions like the Books of Adam and Eve and Homilies and Recognitions of Clement, all well Ante-Nicene texts of the first three centuries.

One scholar, to show the fallacy in trusting their judgment of dates, claims because it is a companion piece to Jubilees which he placed in the 6th century.

Only Jubilees is from BC and belongs with 1 Enoch and both were recovered in fragments in Qumran.

The likely NEWER Homilies and Recognitions of Clement has a fourth century MS. and Saul is the enemy of James and Peter in it and later Simon the Sorcerer stands in for Paul, cleverly.

The link I gave you is a 1900, roughly, translation to be fair, not that scholars who want to assign a late date to it should be forgiven for such a blunder, it was a long time ago and that opinion is dead. Not that this book will ever be Canonical, it's a legitimate ante Nicene tradition, that is a fact.

Arabic Book of Rolls

a reply to: Anaana

Clementine H and R

This is the much longer Ante-Nicene Homilies and Recognitions of Clement (and MUCH more Apocrypha) that has a remarkable resemblance to the link I gave you but is longer and a little different. Probably newer even because Paul is now Simon Magus to disguise the object of their ire and corruptor of the teaching of Jesus, Paul.

If you don't mind Paul you must not mind lying, slavery, oppressive dogma, haters of the true apostles, haters who didn't know Jesus, misogyny and mass murder of innocent people as well as people who are traitors to their people on a consistent basis. Not to mention just being an all around scumbag.

Just saying. I have a problem with these things, Paul DID these things. Was those things.

originally posted by: irenialilivenka
a reply to: Anaana

Apocryphal means secret or hidden away.

There is deuterocanonical Apocrypha in Catholic Bibles that is not heretical but anything outside of that is. Athanasius might be a better person to blame I honestly don't know much about the Gelasian decree tbh.

Athanasius was the messenger for whoever wanted to ban Apocryphal books, which didn't include the deuterocanon called today Apocrypha. The true definition is not heretical (which means choice or [right to] choose) so it can get confusing.

But to help you out, just Google Apocalypse of Peter and you will find it. It is mentioned in Church history that much I know for a fact.

In the Book of Rolls it's the 8th book, I will get you a link for that but the (Arabs call it the Book of Perfection) A. of Peter, book 8, is usually not published with it because at the time it was relatively unknown that Paul was such a creep and no Christian wants to hear that. That is my guess, but the Ethiopian scribes altered it and have had it for a long time. Syriac preserved the original and it is difficult to find information on, but the pdf does a great job of that.

Jubilees, Enoch and other books were preserved bt Ethiopians so we can thank them for that. My biggest problem with Paul is that he is an admitted liar, proud of it, and pro slavery. Misogynistic, contentious, collaborative traitor and more terrible qualities for a religious figure. Preached submission to world leaders as equal to submission to God.

Who cares if he would be a despicable person by modern (and by ancient Jewish Nazarene) standards, right?

I ain't down with that.

Each their own though.

Or your capacity to understand Paul is that of a child and everyone else has a more mature and balanced understanding of what Paul taught
Incidentally, Paul taught no laws, just love, but hay, whatever you think you are welcome to think that.

You and Ak and your crazy gnostic rantings, I just don't get it

a reply to: Anaana

Here also is a link to the various fragments and versions of the A of Peter.

A of Peter information

Dated 100 to 125 AD it is in the Muratorian Canon, mentioned by Titus Flavius Clemens of Alexandria in the second century and in the Codex Claramontarus.

There is absolutely no doubt it is the first Christian MS. to mention the afterlife in detail, that it is from about the same time as John's Revelation and was, at one point, Canonical.

No doubt this means it is legitimate. Rome was pro Paul and Peter was only a way to claim apostolic succession. He plays no real role in Christian theology.

Paul, Paul, Paul. The anti Semitic "Pharisee" was more appealing than the Law of Moses to the Romans who basically stole a religion and killed ALL competition.

Enjoy!

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: irenialilivenka
a reply to: Anaana

Apocryphal means secret or hidden away.

There is deuterocanonical Apocrypha in Catholic Bibles that is not heretical but anything outside of that is. Athanasius might be a better person to blame I honestly don't know much about the Gelasian decree tbh.

Athanasius was the messenger for whoever wanted to ban Apocryphal books, which didn't include the deuterocanon called today Apocrypha. The true definition is not heretical (which means choice or [right to] choose) so it can get confusing.

But to help you out, just Google Apocalypse of Peter and you will find it. It is mentioned in Church history that much I know for a fact.

In the Book of Rolls it's the 8th book, I will get you a link for that but the (Arabs call it the Book of Perfection) A. of Peter, book 8, is usually not published with it because at the time it was relatively unknown that Paul was such a creep and no Christian wants to hear that. That is my guess, but the Ethiopian scribes altered it and have had it for a long time. Syriac preserved the original and it is difficult to find information on, but the pdf does a great job of that.

Jubilees, Enoch and other books were preserved bt Ethiopians so we can thank them for that. My biggest problem with Paul is that he is an admitted liar, proud of it, and pro slavery. Misogynistic, contentious, collaborative traitor and more terrible qualities for a religious figure. Preached submission to world leaders as equal to submission to God.

Who cares if he would be a despicable person by modern (and by ancient Jewish Nazarene) standards, right?

I ain't down with that.

Each their own though.

Raggeymens reply:


Or your capacity to understand Paul is that of a child and everyone else has a more mature and balanced understanding of what Paul taught
Incidentally, Paul taught no laws, just love, but hay, whatever you think you are welcome to think that.

You and Ak and your crazy gnostic rantings, I just don't get it

Right...

What about being pro slavery is hard to understand? I can prove beyond doubt that Paul was pro slavery with his own words, and every other thing I said about him.

None are topics I just don't understand, that'd be you. I don't know how anyone COULD misundersand this, apparently you found a way. That's something!

But, yeah, saying I don't understand and proving it are two different things. I am much open to debate.

What do I "misundersand"?

Because I like to analyze things to better understand, it makes me stupid. What logic you possess!

Paul is a creep. But I understand every word of his trash writings.

He was also obsessed with circumcision and was fond of making new rules while declaring (in opposition to Jesus) the Law was dead, a curse. Abolished.

He hates God's law.

Loves making rules of his own and passing them off as "revelations" so it's safe to say Paul made new "laws" or rules, whatever you want to call them (even though this was never really my point your statements was made in error form lack of comprehension) and discarded the Law of God.

He certainly told people what to do, believe, and think to be "saved" which whatever you want to call it is his own law, he just doesn't call it that.

And it's bs.

a reply to: Raggedyman


My love of learning might make me inferior to the blind faith crowd, but I don't care about that.

But trying (failing) to say that I just don't understand is a cop out, it is truly you who doesn't understand. Or want to. All you want is to be right.

You know that you are not though.

originally posted by: irenialilivenka
a reply to: Raggedyman


My love of learning might make me inferior to the blind faith crowd, but I don't care about that.

But trying (failing) to say that I just don't understand is a cop out, it is truly you who doesn't understand. Or want to. All you want is to be right.

You know that you are not though.

Of course, you are right, all those others are wrong, only you know the hidden truth, every one else is inferior to your mind
Fundamentalist Gnostics, you are a special breed

Good luck in your journeys
You just don't understand common sense

a reply to: Raggedyman

Yes. That's true.

originally posted by: irenialilivenka

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: irenialilivenka
a reply to: Anaana

Apocryphal means secret or hidden away.

There is deuterocanonical Apocrypha in Catholic Bibles that is not heretical but anything outside of that is. Athanasius might be a better person to blame I honestly don't know much about the Gelasian decree tbh.

Athanasius was the messenger for whoever wanted to ban Apocryphal books, which didn't include the deuterocanon called today Apocrypha. The true definition is not heretical (which means choice or [right to] choose) so it can get confusing.

But to help you out, just Google Apocalypse of Peter and you will find it. It is mentioned in Church history that much I know for a fact.

In the Book of Rolls it's the 8th book, I will get you a link for that but the (Arabs call it the Book of Perfection) A. of Peter, book 8, is usually not published with it because at the time it was relatively unknown that Paul was such a creep and no Christian wants to hear that. That is my guess, but the Ethiopian scribes altered it and have had it for a long time. Syriac preserved the original and it is difficult to find information on, but the pdf does a great job of that.

Jubilees, Enoch and other books were preserved bt Ethiopians so we can thank them for that. My biggest problem with Paul is that he is an admitted liar, proud of it, and pro slavery. Misogynistic, contentious, collaborative traitor and more terrible qualities for a religious figure. Preached submission to world leaders as equal to submission to God.

Who cares if he would be a despicable person by modern (and by ancient Jewish Nazarene) standards, right?

I ain't down with that.

Each their own though.

Raggeymens reply:


Or your capacity to understand Paul is that of a child and everyone else has a more mature and balanced understanding of what Paul taught
Incidentally, Paul taught no laws, just love, but hay, whatever you think you are welcome to think that.

You and Ak and your crazy gnostic rantings, I just don't get it

Right...

What about being pro slavery is hard to understand? I can prove beyond doubt that Paul was pro slavery with his own words, and every other thing I said about him.

None are topics I just don't understand, that'd be you. I don't know how anyone COULD misundersand this, apparently you found a way. That's something!

But, yeah, saying I don't understand and proving it are two different things. I am much open to debate.

What do I "misundersand"?

Because I like to analyze things to better understand, it makes me stupid. What logic you possess!

Paul is a creep. But I understand every word of his trash writings.

Paul wasn't for against slavery, don't be such a child
Paul didn't teach secular law, Paul taught Jesus and the promise of a new life after this life.
Paul taught spiritual hope in a secular broken world.
If Paul or Jesus spoke out against slavery then there would have been a slave revolt and millions of deaths, then people like you would be bitching that Jesus and Paul were evil warmongers
Yours is a childish argument, it's immature and ignorant
Stop studying and use your common sense

a reply to: Raggedyman

Heh.

"Slaves, treat your masters not as men and women, but as God and Christ. "

Paul. Pro slavery indeed.

originally posted by: irenialilivenka
Paul, Paul, Paul. The anti Semitic "Pharisee" was more appealing than the Law of Moses to the Romans who basically stole a religion and killed ALL competition.

Enjoy!

Seeing the purpose in something is not the same as agreeing with that purpose. Other than occupationally, I don't have any religious affiliations, my interest is more in terms of the social evolution of christianity, that the Roman Church was a tool of empire builders, pretty much goes without saying...in my opinion and the development of Paulianism is reflective of that, as is, by extension, the rejection of him by the Protestant movements.

Hence my interest. I haven't a horse in the religious race.

That said, I am now, with the extra details you have generously supplied, off to explore and will return when I am better informed.

Many thanks

originally posted by: irenialilivenka
a reply to: Raggedyman

Heh.

"Slaves, treat your masters not as men and women, but as God and Christ. "

Paul. Pro slavery indeed.

Yeah, I'd accept that that is quite the deviation from Jesus's good master and good servant teachings. Paul is pandering to the elite, at the very least.

Ephesians 6:5

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with FEAR AND TREMBLING, in singleness of heart, AS YOU OBEY CHRIST; Not just when being watched, and in order TO PLEASE THEM, BUT AS SLAVES OF CHRIST, DOING THE WILL OF GOD FROM THE HEART.

Render service with enthusiasm, AS TO THE LORD and not as to men and women.

Pro slavery?

Check.

Treat masters like God?

Check.

Rationalization is the only way, or ignore and deny, anyone could say this is not pro slavery. It certainly is not anti slavery.

Not neutral either.

Pro. Pro slavery.

originally posted by: Anaana

originally posted by: irenialilivenka
a reply to: Raggedyman

Heh.

"Slaves, treat your masters not as men and women, but as God and Christ. "

Paul. Pro slavery indeed.

Yeah, I'd accept that that is quite the deviation from Jesus's good master and good servant teachings. Paul is pandering to the elite, at the very least.

Yes, I am certain of it.

I believe he was a collaborating traitor, and was a Roman stooge. 400 soldiers saving him from being killed?

Pretty good sign he was connected.

a reply to: Anaana

Protestants reject the apostles in favor OF Paul.

They practically worship his every word.

Luther was all about Paul too, hated the Catholic epistles because they cast doubt on the legitimacy of Paul.

Where did you get the impression that Protestants had a problem with Paul? It's actually the exact opposite.

No biggie though. I hope you enjoy the links.

originally posted by: Anaana

originally posted by: irenialilivenka
Paul, Paul, Paul. The anti Semitic "Pharisee" was more appealing than the Law of Moses to the Romans who basically stole a religion and killed ALL competition.

Enjoy!

Seeing the purpose in something is not the same as agreeing with that purpose. Other than occupationally, I don't have any religious affiliations, my interest is more in terms of the social evolution of christianity, that the Roman Church was a tool of empire builders, pretty much goes without saying...in my opinion and the development of Paulianism is reflective of that, as is, by extension, the rejection of him by the Protestant movements.

Hence my interest. I haven't a horse in the religious race.

That said, I am now, with the extra details you have generously supplied, off to explore and will return when I am better informed.

Many thanks

My pleasure!