But become makers of the message -
and not just hearers misleading yourselves
For if anyone is a hearer of the
message and not a maker
he is like a man assessing the face of his 'Genesis'
in a mirror [Jm.1:22-23]
AUTHENTIC CHRISTIANITY
|
|
But become makers of the message -
and not just hearers misleading yourselves |
Please note: Strict implementation of HTML prohibits the display of 8-bit Greek characters from the 'Symbol' font, as still used on this site to display unaccented Greek characters. Users of Internet Explorer should expect no problems but users of Firefox 3.x may need to install the 'Web Page Fixer +' add-on available here or here before the Greek text will display as intended.
|
If you find this
website to be of some interest Why Call Me God? : The Gospel Seen with a Single Eye published by Capabel Press in September 2009. The book
explains the ancient 'mystery' concealed behind the text of the gospels The riddles of
Greek scripture are soon unravelled to expose the devastating plot Analysis then
shows that the deeply challenging message of the gospels For details, please click here |
ISBN: 978 0 9562057 0 4 |
Copyright
Notice
As the basis for my work I have used the
Nestlé-Aland 26th Edition Greek text. Copyright on this is reserved as
follows :
..... Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestlé-Aland 26th edition
(c)1979, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart;
..... The Greek New
Testament, 3rd edition (c) 1975, United Bible Societies, London
This is the
Greek text underlying most modern English translations since 1881, including
the New American Standard and New International Versions. Certain words within
the Nestlé text proper are enclosed in square brackets [ ] or double
brackets [[ ]]. These reflect those places where the critical text editors
consider the inclusion or omission of such text to be in question.
This
text is only available for NON-COMMERCIAL personal/scholarly and educational
use.
I have also used the CATSS LXX editions of the Septuagint Old Testament
prepared by the TLG (Thesaurus Linguae Graecae) Project directed by T. Brunner
at the University of California, Irvine and made available through the Center
for Computer Analysis of Texts (CCAT) at the University of Pennsylvania 'for
the use of students, teachers and scholars in study and education
contexts'.
This text is only available for NON-COMMERCIAL
personal/scholarly and educational use.
Unless otherwise noted, the remainder of what is presented in this
document is my original work. Copyright on this is reserved as follows
:
..... Authentic Christianity, 4th edition : (c) 2005, Target Technical,
York, UK
All rights are reserved - except that this text is made
available without charge for NON-COMMERCIAL personal/scholarly and educational
use.
16.1
Introduction
The Christian tradition, now so long
established, claims Paul as the 'Apostle to the Gentiles' [Ac.22:21; Rm.11:13].
It holds that he was a real person - abruptly commandeered by God around the
middle of the first century CE. Accordingly his task was to widen the circle of
those committed to the recently re-manifested deity, Jesus Christ. To many from
the Jewish tradition, this is close to being incomprehensible. To those of the
established Christian tradition, nothing is comprehensible without it. But, as
so often in human affairs, each of these parties has missed the point, each has
failed to understand the modus operandi of scripture - and the
rôle played in the narrative by Paul. For, if you read on, you will see
that in common with all the rest of scripture, these stories about Paul are in
fact gnostic texts. And once you know that then your perspective is
corrected - and you may see how neatly everything fits into place.
For the established Christian tradition, mistaken as it surely is, this 'widening of the circle' is understood in one sense to be the casting of a larger and less restrictive net for those who now are to come under the spell of the gospels - and as a dramatic extension to the religious tradition of Israel itself. In another sense it is also geographical, for the tradition will be taken to Rome - and beyond.
The 'Acts of the Apostles' was set down in Greek. It is in the narrative of this book that we first encounter Saul as the persecutor of those who follow Jesus. Like his namesake in the books of Samuel [Ac.13:21], this Pharisee comes from the tribe of Benjamin [Rm.11:1; Ph.3:5]. Conveniently for the narrative, he is also a citizen of Rome. And now comes the miraculous (as some suppose) volte-face. For Saul is 'struck down on the way' as he nears Damascus. After three days without sight his vision is restored - and, in a brief section of narrative for which the riddles are truly hard to fathom, his name changes to 'Paul'. In original Greek this is 'PAULOS' (in Latin it means "little", whilst the Greek word 'PHAULOS' means "inefficient, careless, bad", even "depraved"). Paul is now a committed advocate of the 'lord Jesus Christ', the same whose followers he used to persecute [Ac.9:3-20]. In the narrative he then proceeds to travel widely across Asia Minor and the Mediterranean, ending his epic journeys at Rome.
Now, since the 4th century CE, the Christian tradition has understood NT scripture to be substantially a record of real-world events. It has therefore taught that through Paul the gentile nations benefit from inclusion into the religious tradition of Abraham, extended (as it is considered to have been) by a momentous intervention by God himself in the affairs of the world - as derived from the narrative of the four gospels.
This is the popular tradition. Popular it may be - and certainly it has survived through many centuries. But, as I shall now show, it was in the first instance mis-taken - and in our time it remains just that, mistaken. For :
- As with the gospels themselves, 'Acts' is evidently a sequel to the book of 'Genesis'. Displaying a dream-like discontinuity in many sequences, it is tightly packed with riddles. Its narrative is manifestly fictional - along with the character identified as 'Paul'. Taken at face value, its geography is often quite convincing. But the riddles disclose that it has to be myth - and not a record of real-life events at all.
- The author of 'Acts' portrays Saul/Paul as the deluded prophet of the 'serpent' of 'Genesis' (and yes, the 'serpent' is satan, Jesus himself 'seed of the serpent').
- It follows that the tradition established by the church is simply that of those deceived - by the ubiquitous scriptural 'serpent'.
Granted, the popular interpretation is consistent with the superficial import of the texts. But that is where its validity ends. For the core of the problem, over which the western world has stumbled for so long, is this : all scripture is 'gnostic'. It therefore follows :
- That it presents to every reader a major intellectual and spiritual challenge - thoroughly stretching the imagination.
- That it treats throughout with the contention between good and evil.
- That the entire scheme of scripture is infused with a sense of the conflict between these two.
- That in scripture what is good is good : it knows no evil, it can do no evil. It is dark - and serene.
- But what is evil is open to every possibility - thus even to deceit. Accordingly, in the context of scripture, that which is evil is free to masquerade as good. It is light - and turbulent.
To grasp the cultural origins of scripture, we must go back at least 3500 years - to the civilisations of Mespotamia and to Egypt in the centuries before the 18th dynasty. You can see for yourself the icons of this age in the British Museum in London - and no doubt elsewhere. Look for the Pharaoh rulers named AmenOphis [Ophis(Gk.) = serpent] and the representations of Amun, a ram-headed 'god' whose head-dress (the Uraeus) is adorned with an image of the solar disc and a serpent spitting poison [cf. Mk.8:23]. Here is the religious tradition which infuses the book of 'Genesis' - indeed all scripture. This, if you do not understand it, will cause you to go astray in your encounter with scripture. For there is a trap - and the risk is that you will fall straight into it, as many have done before you. Appropriately, it is in 'Genesis' that first we meet with the ubiquitous scriptural serpent [Gn.3:1]. This most subtle and deadly of 'created' deities is subsequently identified as 'satan', the opponent of the prime God - identified also as both the creator and the deceiver of the whole 'cosmos', the world of light and of life which he has made [Jn.1:1-5; Rv.12:9]. He manifests too 'as an angel of light' [2Cor.11:14; Ac.9:3 below].
Now to provide for what is evil to masquerade as good, all scripture is written with two possible interpretations. For a rough analogy you may like to think of the equation for a parabola (the word in Greek is the same as that for a parable), a curve represented by what mathematicians know as a quadratic equation. Such an equation has two roots, it has two solutions. This is the nature of scripture. Then one solution is robust - and it is good. The other solution, more easily accessible, is however fragile and incomplete - for it leaves us with unresolved contradictions [eg. Jn.15:12; Lk.14:26]. However popular, this second solution is the serpent's deception. It is evil through and through. Little good can come of it - and much harm.
Now unfortunately the structure employed in scripture is strongly biased against the gullible : those not forewarned are more than likely to be led astray. For this is a written message - and it is set down in such a way that those 'easy' readers, taking at face value what has been written, may embrace the immediate import of what is suggested, falling directly into the logical and spiritual 'trap' which has been set for them. For the 'god' they identify, and promptly embrace, is the 'lord god'. But this is the serpent god, the deceiver, the impostor who stands in the place of God himself [2Th.2:3-12]. Now, failing to spot the deception, these are the readers who hear the boastful message of satan and grasp it with both hands. Having no adequate yardstick, easily persuaded, deceived by the multiple disguises of the serpent, they fondly imagine him to be God. He is not.
A careful study of scripture itself is sufficient to show beyond doubt the validity of what I have just explained. Unfortunately the process of establishing of the Catholic church in the 4th century CE was less than a careful process - becoming concomitant with the extinction of the gnostic tradition. Thus the Catholic church, in all its ignorance, took the keys to the 'mystery' of the very scriptures upon which it was about to found its tradition and - right at the start - threw them away. Now the tradition established was false, a runaway train, a mistaken 'church'. It has careered out of control through the centuries, across the face of the planet. And now, in our age, we find this 'church' burdened by seventeen centuries of its own 'history'. And what a troubled history it has been.
In this chapter I shall now show how the riddles of scripture reveal the mind of the author of 'Acts' on the status and rôle of fictional 'Paul'. We shall watch as he becomes the unwitting agent of the scriptural 'serpent', the mythical 'semi-god' - who, as the authors themselves determine, never was God (and never will be).
16.2 Conversion of
Saul
I shall skip over the early chapters of
'Acts'. Towards the end Ch.7 we come to the first mention of Saul - as
one at whose feet are placed the clothes of those who stone Stephen to death
(in the literalist tradition Stephen is understood to be the first martyr of
the Christian era).
Now the story of Saul's conversion is recounted three times in 'Acts'. The first report forms a part of the narrative and appears in the third person. The second and third are presented as accounts by Paul himself. These appear in the first person. Each gives somewhat different detail - with the author using the repeated opportunity to inform the reader more fully, both through the use of contradictions and by incorporating a variety of interlocking riddles.
Here is the first report :
Now I shall discuss this passage in a moment. But to explain it properly I must first quote from the book of 'Genesis'. Damascus itself is mentioned only twice in 'Genesis' - first in the passage which follows and then a few verses further on [Gn.15:2 where we hear of 'Eliezer of Damascus', the name Eliezer means in Hebrew something like 'god-help-me']. Now it is apparent that the author(s) of 'Genesis' have represented the mythical meeting between Abram and Melchizedek as taking place near Damascus. In the narrative Abram meets with this mysterious 'priest' - King of Sodom. Like Cain before him, Melchizedek brings 'from the fruits of the earth' [Gn.4:3]. Yes, this is the first explicit mention in scripture of bread and wine ...
Now did you notice where this action took place ... first at Dan and then as far as Choba - which is "on the left of Damascus". Dan ( Heb: 'judge' ) is to be the name of Jacob's fifth child - by Bilhah (Rachel's maid). This child is then listed as number seven in the order of paternal consideration at Gn.49. Jacob's forecast for Dan goes as follows :
Dan is then the only one of the twelve tribes not listed as being 'sealed' at Rv.7:4-9. Indeed, like Ishmael, Dan is never mentioned explicitly in any of the texts of the NT canon.
Now can we escape the notion that Abram's encounter with Melchizedek provides the allegorical basis for Saul's encounter with 'the lord' ? Both 'incidents' take place upon the serpent-ridden 'way' to Damascus. Then the two stories are one ?
But what happened to Paul that he was 'struck down' on his journey ? The story perhaps evokes Cain's experience when he 'falls to the face' [Gn.4:5]. But does the narrative suggest a lightning strike ? Given Lk.10:18, this seems a reasonable starting point. But what kind of lightning was this ? Look at what Ananias says :
That phrase 'o ofqeiV soi' (the one seen by you) incorporates the weak aorist passive participle for the Greek verb 'oraw' (I see). But at the same time it serves as a 'container' (a transparent anagram disguise) for 'o ofiV' ( the serpent ). Did you spot it ?
Indeed the construction is cleverer still - for the central digram (letter pair) of the word is 'qe', being the first two letters for the Greek word 'qeoV' (a god). So within the word 'ofqeiV' we can discover both 'ofiV' ( a serpent ) and 'qeoV' (a god) ! This is gnostic scripture at top notch - teaching its arcane theology selectively to the more observant reader !
But if we look back to prior scripture we find that the phrase is not new. For the line 'egw eimi o qeoV o ofqeiV soi ...' (I AM the god seen by you ...) is first found at LXX Gn.31:13 - where the 'angel of god' speaks to Jacob. The trick is the same. As elsewhere, we may suspect that this manifestation of the 'angel of god' is none other than the 'serpent' - or the 'seed of the serpent' (which may be Cain or, in the gospels, Jesus). The two are barely distinguishable - for Jesus is made to speak rightly :
This is how it goes. Paul is speaking 'to the people', reporting his own experience. This is the first time Paul uses (in reverse) Cain's phrase AM I from Gn.4:9, applying it now to himself.
The word 'shmeron' (today) is another utterance first voiced by Cain [Gn.4:14]. It is employed persistently in scripture as 'shmeion' (a sign) for Cain - beginning from Gn.4:15.
Did you notice how the story has changed ?
The author uses 'those with Paul' (his companions in the narrative) as part-players for you, the reader. So what you hear is what they hear - and what you perceive is what they perceive. Do you follow the method ?
Now amongst the comments we can make are these :
- The witness reports at Ac.9:7 and Ac.22:9 directly contradict one another :
Acts :- 44N 9 7 oi de andreV oi sunodeuonteV autw eisthkeisan eneoi akouonteV men thV fwnhV mhdena de qewrounteV
- 44N 9 7 But the men, those on the way with him, stood dumbfounded, actually hearing the voice - but seeing no one.
- .....
- 44N 22 9 oi de sun emoi onteV to men fwV eqeasanto thn de fwnhn ouk hkousan tou lalountoV moi
- 44N 22 9 And those being with me did actually perceive the light - but they did not hear the voice of the one speaking to me.
The first report claims they did hear the voice but saw no one : the second that they did perceive the light but did not hear the voice.
It is surely never wise to rely upon witness evidence which is inconsistent or poorly corroborated. Yet those formulating doctrine for the Christian church have done precisely this. Taking the events narrated here, these so-called 'fathers' of the church have first relied upon them as a record of real-life events. Next they have used them to validate the rôle of Paul as 'Apostle to the Gentiles', embracing this figure as if he were a real-life advocate for God, regarding him as a prophet who asserts his newly acquired 'authority' to bring about the foundation of the Christian church itself. But it is clear from scripture that Paul is a purely fictional figure.
The path these 'fathers' took was the 'broad way'. In modern parlance it would be the congested 'motorway'. With each driver following the one in front, not one amongst them is able to make any sense of the book of maps supplied with the car. The 'way' they follow leads only to destruction - but which amongst them knows it ?
What are we to say of a spiritual leadership so uncritical of scripture that it directs the people straight into the spiritual trap set for them so long ago ? What are we to say to them ?
Matthew :- 40N 7 13 eiselqate dia thV stenhV pulhV oti plateia h pulh kai eurucwroV h odoV h apagousa eiV thn apwleian kai polloi eisin oi eisercomenoi di authV
- 40N 7 13 Enter in through the narrow gate. For broad (is) the gate, and spacious the way which leads to destruction - and many are those entering in through it.
- 40N 7 14 ti stenh h pulh kai teqlimmenh h odoV h apagousa eiV thn zwhn kai oligoi eisin oi euriskonteV authn
- 40N 7 14 How narrow the gate and restricted the way which leads to life - and few are those finding it !
- Examining more closely the conflicting reports reaching us from the 'way' to Damascus, we find that there are certain paired or connected features - derived on the one hand from what we ourselves may hear when we read from the Greek text, on the other hand from what we are able to perceive :
First report ...- 44N 9 5 eipen de tiV ei kurie o de egw eimi ihsouV on su diwkeiV
- 44N 9 5 But he said "Who are you, lord ?" And he (replied) "I AM Jesus - whom you are persecuting
- 44N 9 6 alla anasthqi kai eiselqe eiV thn polin kai lalhqhsetai soi o ti se dei poiein
- 44N 9 6 But rise up and enter into the city - and it will be told to you what you must do".
- 44N 9 7 oi de andreV oi sunodeuonteV autw eisthkeisan eneoi akouonteV men thV fwnhV mhdena de qewrounteV
- 44N 9 7 But the men, those on the way with him, stood dumbfounded, actually hearing the voice - but seeing no one.
Second report ...- 44N 22 6 egeneto de moi poreuomenw kai eggizonti th damaskw peri meshmbrian exaifnhV ek tou ouranou periastrayai fwV ikanon peri eme
- 44N 22 6 But it happened with my going - and nearing Damascus around midday, suddenly from Heaven there flashed about me a considerable light.
- .....
- 44N 22 9 oi de sun emoi onteV to men fwV eqeasanto thn de fwnhn ouk hkousan tou lalountoV moi
- 44N 22 9 And those being with me did actually perceive the light - but they did not hear the voice of the one speaking to me.
In the second report, notice that this is no longer just a light which they 'perceive' - as it was at Ac.9:3. For by now it has become a considerable light. This development gives a great deal away. In Greek the adjective used is 'ikanon' - and there the reader familiar with Greek scripture will easily spot (just ever so slightly mixed up) the name of kain. In English his name is Cain.
Next, attending to the voice heard in the first report, our ears may catch the phrase "egw eimi" - in English "I AM". This, with the word order reversed, is the phrase first spoken (in all scripture) by Cain :
LXX Genesis :- 01O 4 9 kai eipen o qeoV proV kain pou estin abel o adelfoV sou o de eipen ou ginwskw mh fulax tou adelfou mou eimi egw
- 01O 4 9 And God said to Cain "Where is Abel, your brother?" But he said "I do not know. Surely I AM not my brother`s guardian ?"
Then what we hear - and what we also perceive - strongly suggests that the vision beheld by Saul has been configured by the author as a manifestation of Cain - alias Satan - appearing here in all the brilliance of his reflected 'glory' [Ac.22:11].- Next we may notice this intriguing feature - a common component to the voice "RISE UP" and to the light "PERCEIVED" - as follows :
First report ...- 44N 9 5 eipen de tiV ei kurie o de egw eimi ihsouV on su diwkeiV
- 44N 9 5 But he said "Who are you, lord ?" And he (replied) " I AM Jesus - whom you are persecuting
- 44N 9 6 alla anasthqi kai eiselqe eiV thn polin kai lalhqhsetai soi o ti se dei poiein
- 44N 9 6 But rise up and enter into the city - and it will be told to you what you must do".
Second report ...- 44N 22 9 oi de sun emoi onteV to men fwV eqeasanto thn de fwnhn ouk hkousan tou lalountoV moi
- 44N 22 9 And those being with me did actually perceive the light - but they did not hear the voice of the one speaking to me.
From both hearing and sight, we have elementary anagrams for the name satan - meaning in English SATAN.
Taken in isolation, one might suppose that this arose by chance. But, in the context of these conclusions as a whole, it is probably intentional on the part of the author.
And once you understand the condition asserted in the synoptic gospels for entry to the 'kingdom of the heavens' - to be "rotated and become like the children" [Mt.18:3], you may add more weight to it still.
Amongst the attributes of children is confused or mistaken spelling. The remedy is quite simple. In the reading, the letters forming the word(s) must be "rotated" to correct the error (many primary school teachers will be accustomed to this). Obviously the authors of scripture are not children. But for them such 'mistaken' spelling is a deliberately affected technique*, a tool of gnostic writing. With it they seek to conceal the full meaning of what they write from the casual or hasty reader, even in Hebrew [OT] and Greek [LXX/GNT] - and to conceal it from every reader unwise enough to rely entirely upon texts translated into a third language.
- Matthew :
- 40N 18 3 kai eipen amhn legw umin ean mh strafhte kai genhsqe wV ta paidia ou mh eiselqhte eiV thn basileian twn ouranwn
- 40N 18 3 And he [Jesus] said "Truly I say to you, if you are not rotated and become like the children, you shall certainly not enter into the kingdom of the heavens".
- Luke :
- 42N 18 17 amhn legw umin oV an mh dexhtai thn basileian tou qeou wV paidion ou mh eiselqh eiV authn
- 42N 18 17 "Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child, he shall certainly not enter into it".
The technique is easy to implement. Unfortunate, then, that Latin was adopted as the wordking* language of the western church around the muddle* of the 4th century CE.
The particular example exercised here is reminiscent of something you may have seen before - in the gospels :
- Mark :
- 41N 6 49 oi de idonteV auton epi thV qalasshV peripatounta edoxan oti fantasma estin kai anekraxan
- 41N 6 49 But those seeing him walking upon the sea supposed that it is a ghost - and cried out
- 41N 6 50 panteV gar auton eidon kai etaracqhsan o de euquV elalhsen met autwn kai legei autoiV qarseite egw eimi mh fobeisqe
- 41N 6 50 For all saw him - and were disturbed. But immediately he spoke with them and he said to them "Have confidence ! I AM. Do not be afraid".
- Matthew :
- 40N 28 17 kai idonteV auton prosekunhsan oi de edistasan
- 40N 28 17 And seeing him, they worshipped - but some doubted.
Can we say more on the identity of this 'lord' - "seen by Saul on the way" ?
There is a word in Hebrew- meaning something like 'ENEMY'. Transcribed into Greek, it becomes (for use by the NT authors) 'satan' - or in English SATAN.
The equivalent name in Greek is 'o ecqros', the enemy - which further helps to explain why those at Mk.6:50 (quoted above) "were disturbed") - when they "all saw him".
Thus it is that the 'one seen' by Saul is depicted by the authors to be SATAN. This is the impostor, the one who stands in the place of God - making out that he himself is God [see 2Th.2:4]. Accordingly this story of the 'conversion' of Paul is the story of his unwitting subversion by the forces of evil. Yet in large part the tradition of the Christian church has been founded upon the literal interpretation of this very narrative - with no grasp whatever of how the riddles are intended to alter the reader's assessment of what is really going on.
Then the Christian church is nothing other than the 'synagogue of satan' [Rv.2:9, 3:9] - the deluded church originated by a deluded (and fictional) prophet !
And as for how this matter came to be overlooked by those who first established, and those who then promoted, the doctrine of the Catholic church ... well, I fancy there is a great deal of explaining which still remains to be done.
With this final report, Paul seeks to justify his position to King Agrippa :
Here the voice adds a theme absent from the earlier accounts : "(It is) hard for you to kick against stings".
Now which stings might these possibly be ? Following other scholars, Uta Ranke-Heinemann [Ref.1] calls attention to the parallel between this passage and one from the Bacchae of Euripides where the persecuted god Dionysus speaks to his persecutor, Pentheus the king of Thebes.
But do you recall this verse from 'Genesis - somehow associated with Dan and with Damascus ?'
Here, I think, we have the explanation. Paul is the 'horseman' - brought down 'upon the way' by the toxic stings of the serpent - who is satan [Rv.12:9, 20:2].
Then did you witness 'ofiV' ( the serpent ) concealed within the phrase 'ofqhsomai soi' ( I shall be seen by you ) at 26:16 ? This is typical of the way this creature may be 'seen' in the texts of scripture.
And here in the final verse at 26:18 is satan himself - this time with no disguise
whatever ! In his hubris, he now refers to himself by name - and
asserts openly his preference to "turn their eyes" away
from "the authority of Satan over
God".
Dazzling all with his
brilliance, he is the 'to fwV' (the light) - but
the persistent attribute of God himself is
that He is (primeval) Darkness :
Now the task assigned to the deluded Paul may be summarised as :
- "To open their eyes for turning from Darkness [A] to light [B] - and (away) from the authority of Satan [B] over God [A]"
- "For taking them remission of sins - and a 'destiny' among those made holy by a faith which is in ME"
Think about it. This is exactly what has happened as the centuries have unfolded. What was provided for here, this gnostic plan for global deceit, it is now reflected in at least seventeen centuries of our actual history. Stunning ?
How ever did the Catholic church, in the time of its establishment, make such a dreadful mistake about the nature of scripture itself, receiving all of it literally ?
How did it fall - game, set and match - into the trap set for the unwary, mistaking the light, the mythical Christ figure, for God himself ? How ever did this happen ?
Well, this may be the first reason. The Roman world was in dramatic decline. It lost the use of the languages of scripture. Latin was adopted as the working language of the western church from around the year 350 CE. By the end of that century the scriptures had been 'translated' into Latin, the OT from Hebrew, the NT from Greek. As a direct result, many of the key riddles of scripture were obliterated from the texts in use. They were quite simply 'strained out' by the process of substituting every word in Greek with another in the target language.
And this may be the second reason. Insecurity is the common weakness of all mankind - the fear of nemesis, of death, the fear of retribution. And, as the gnostic authors of scripture would have it, Satan is ruthless in exploiting this insecurity. Where it persists, he extends the twin promises - for eternal life [Gn.3:4; Jn.11:26] and for forgiveness for sin [Lk.1:77].
16.5 Peter's
Vision
Now let us suppose, just for the sake of argument,
that you refuse to 'become like the children'. You refuse to accept that
the authors of scripture have exploited the possibility of 'spelling mistakes'
as a tool for communicating with their readers. Let us suppose also that you
have forgotten about Melchizedek's attempt to subvert Abram somewhere in the
vicinity of Damascus. Then let us proceed in another way.
Referring to Saul, this is what 'the lord' says to Ananias :
Like Jesus in the gospels, Peter was staying by the sea - at
Joppa actually, in the house of one Simon,
a tanner ...
(Peter's own name is Simon : the reference to a tanner may be
connected with the statement at Gn.3:21. Notice that it was the
lord god who made the coats from
skins for Adam and his woman).
First let me draw your eye to Ac.10:14 and Ac.11:8 (see Greek text above; also intervening Ac.10:28). The importance of the riddle found here is emphasised by its being reproduced three times in all.
Barely concealed within the phrase 'koinon [kai][h] akaqarton' (common [and][or] unclean), it is with no difficulty that we may identify both 'oinon' (wine) and 'arton' (bread). Thus you may know what the author of 'Acts' is really getting at with referring to foods as "common and unclean" [see also Lk.7:33]. The key liturgical ritual of the Christian tradition is the so-called 'Eucharist'. This entails the offering of bread and wine. Could anyone who has actually understood the self-declared 'mystery' of scripture ever take part (again) in this most unfortunate of religious rituals ?
The early texts of scripture were reproduced by hand with no spacing between the words - so for readers in the early centuries CE this kind of 'double entendre' would have been really easy to spot (and if you still don't believe this construction was intended by the author, please see Chapter 17 : "Cain's Mistake : Not Dividing Rightly"). In a case such as this the Catholic church can at least tender the excuse (feeble as it is) that in translation to Latin they did not see the evidence. But their prior mistake, for which they should be held equally accountable, was to neglect the languages of scripture in the first place. Thus, in their blind ignorance, when they read the book titled 'Acts of the Apostles' what they saw there was the Latin phrase "commune et inmundum" [Vulgate]. As happens so extensively with scripture, this literal "translation" (upon which they relied) had deleted completely the pivotal riddle set down by the author.
It is on account of mistakes such as this that the entire Christian church is stuck up an "ideological gum tree" - to this very day. There is no way down but to admit the mistakes. And will the admission not bring about an end for the church - the closure of the Christian era in the annals of history ? Perhaps it will.
But what are we to say of the Greek Orthodox church, in whose native language this elementary riddle has been implemented ?
"... sleepy eyes ..." ? [Is.6:9-10; Mt.13:14-15; Ac.28:26-27; 1Cor.11:30].
"You have failed in your duty to explain the 'mystery' of scripture to the rest of us" ?
Or should we think back instead to the events of the 13th century ? I quote from Catholic theologian Hans Küng's useful book "The Catholic Church : A Short History" as follows [Ref.2] :
- With hindsight, (Roman Pontiff) Innocent III's policy of crusades was tragically misguided. With the initiation of the Fourth Crusade (1202-4), which led to the fateful conquest and three-day plunder of Constantinople, to the erection of a Latin empire with a Latin church organization, and to the enslaving of the Byzantine church, the papal goal (the establishment of the Roman primacy in Constantinople) at last seemed to have been achieved. However the opposite was the case : the rape of Constantinople in fact sealed the schism.
So much for what foods are "common and unclean". With that key learning point behind us, let us now address the story of Peter's vision as a whole. Already Paul has been explicitly identified as 'container of choice' [Ac.9:15].
With the repeated story of his 'conversion', he is three times brought into view.
Here, in his vision, Peter sees this 'container'. It is three times lowered down from Heaven.
Yet it is clear that the contents of this container are 'unclean' (whatever the voice may say that God was trying to do in the way of cleaning them up). For it includes even reptiles - in which class the serpent himself may be numbered. Evidently these 'contents' are from the list of evil things created on the fifth/sixth day at Gn.1:20-27 (remember also that Peter was praying on the roof at the sixth hour).
Thus Paul is deemed to be a 'container' - a receptacle which, though it may look good on the outside, inwardly is filled with evil things.
We may be reminded of the "river" at Gn.2:10-14. It too has four branches and by inspection it too appears "filled with evil things". Is this river the "tree for knowing knowledge of good and evil" [Gn.2:9] ?
But this scenario is strongly reminiscent of a passage from the gospels :
Notice the similarity between the adverbs 'exwqen' (outwardly) and the word 'oqonhn' (linen). The 'linen' provides a covering 'outwardly'. This may then serve to prevent you from identifying the true nature of that which lies within ?
Paul, of course, is a Pharisee [Ac.23:6]. Need I say more ?
----- o -----
We could end there - with the hollow nature of Paul thus exposed. But, in making a point, the authors of scripture sometimes choose to ram it well home. Here we have such a case. There is more to explain about Peter's vision.
The container itself is likened to 'oqonhn megalhn' (a great piece of linen) with four branches, ends, origins, corners, or beginnings. In it Peter sees "the four-footed (creatures) of the earth and the wild beasts and the reptiles and the birds of Heaven".
Now the word 'oqonhn' (linen) may also evoke the word 'qronoV' (a throne). There are 62 references to a 'throne' in the NT Canon. Most of these are in the 'Book of Revelation' but here is one from 'Acts'.
Here is a translation from Book I of Homer's Odyssey, a Greek classic dating from the 8th century BCE :
Here are the elements which the story of Peter's dream has in common with this passage :
- The wish to taste something
- A lofty house / roof.
- A linen cloth.
- An object with four branches - or four ends ?
Peter is resting on the rooftop of the house. He looks up. Imagine that above him is a high throne, a generous carved chair with four feet, standing upon a linen cloth which is spread out somewhere above his head. What does he see ?
He sees the linen cloth - with four protrusions in it made by the feet of the throne which press upon it from above. Located below the cloth we have the Earth where Peter is - a "footstool" for the feet of the one seated upon the throne.
----- o -----
But what kind of 'throne' is this ? And who now is seated upon it ? Has the author of 'Acts' adapted another theme from Homer's Odyssey ?
 |
See in the foreground the
serpent
who has killed the high priest
Laocoon and his children.
The Trojans
celebrate in triumph, bringing the wooden
horse into the city.
The horse was a 'container'. From the Trojan perspective, its contents would shortly do them much harm.
Now if this is a 'throne' which Peter sees from beneath the linen sheet, then it may not be a mere chair - but indeed a wooden horse complete with a horseman astride it. This would make a lot of sense out of Peter's vision. For already we have noted [from the narrative of 'Acts', see Section 16.4 above] that Paul appears be the 'horseman', the heel of whose mount is bitten by the serpent Dan [Gn.49:17].
If horse and horseman are one, in the manner of a centaur, then we have a complete solution to the riddles presented in the vision. For Paul is not only 'the horseman' but, as the horse, he is also a 'container' filled with the common and unclean things of Gn.1:20-27.
The vision itself takes place in the 'city' of Joppa [ en polei iopph ]. This name seems to provide, in itself, a further suggestion that we are dealing here with 'ippoV' (a horse).
Then it would seem that Laocoon's warning was appropriate. Virgil retells the story in Latin with his 'Aeneid', Book II, 49.
This last phrase I was taught around the age of 12 - and never forgot it. But never did I then imagine it might apply to St. Paul himself.
The attractive horse thus presented to the citizens of Troy is in truth a 'container'. It is a 'container' filled with evil things - which in short order will overwhelm them all.
Paul, at his conversion, becomes a 'container' [Ac.9:15]. It also appears that he is regarded as a 'horseman' brought down upon the way' [Ac.26:14; Gn.49:17]. And now perhaps we see why Saul's name changes and he becomes known as P(h)aul - a name meaning "inefficient, careless, bad", even "depraved".
In the 'Book of Revelation' there is extensive mention of horses having riders. At Rv.6:2-8 there are four horses - white, red, black and green. And the last reference to a horseman is this :
Returning briefly to the encounter of Abram with Melchizedek, King of Sodom, we see how much it has in common with the 'conversion of Saul' as set out in 'Acts' :
----- o -----
The established Christian church, founded as it is upon a superficial or literal appreciation of Paul as 'Apostle to the Nations', has surely much to learn - in particular about the scriptures which so carelessly it has sought to embrace.
What did Augustine say on the obscurity of scripture ['De Doctrina Christiana' 2:6:7]?
- There is a rough parallel between the story of Abram's encounter with Melchizedek, King of Sodom [Gn.14:17], and the story of Saul's encounter with Jesus [Ac.9:3]. Both encounters take place near Damascus. In each case a horse is involved.
- Saul's is a vision of Jesus - who is also the satanic figure Cain. In his vision Cain's voice is heard, Cain's name is perceived.
- Peter's vision is a vision of Paul - now revealed as a 'Trojan horse', a mere 'container', outwardly attractive but inwardly "filled with unclean things".
- Satan's sinister and subversive purpose with Paul is overtly stated at Ac.26:18. It is that he should :
" ... open their eyes for turning from Darkness to light and (away) from the authority of Satan over God - for taking them remission of sins and a 'destiny' among those made holy by a faith which is in ME"
This statement is worth reading with care. All scripture treats with this troublesome "authority of Satan over God". The scriptural authors hold that it is the Light which truly is evil - and the Darkness good. But they do not hinder excessively what they hold to be the wish of Satan - which is to turn your eyes away from this fact and to trick you into thinking that he, the Light, is really God.- In failing to penetrate the 'mystery' of its own scripture, the established Christian church has mistaken the identity of almost the entire cast. It has mistaken evil for good. Then it has a lot of explaining to do.
16.7
Postscript
This site is still 'under construction'. So
please forgive its shortcomings ! There is always more which might be done.
If you would like to make any comments (favourable or otherwise) or have any corrections to offer, then I would be delighted to hear from you - and please accept my thanks in advance. Please use this e-mail address :
16.8
References
[1] Ranke-Heinemann, Uta, "Nein und Amen :
Anleitung zum Glaubenszweifel", 1992, p.200
qv.
Detering, Hermann, "The Falsified Paul ", Journal of Higher Criticism, 10(2),
Fall 2003 : ISSN 1075:7139, p.21
[2] Küng, Hans, "The Catholic Church :
A Short History", Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 2001 : ISBN 0-297-64638-9, p.98
