Peter's Life Made Fiction By Acts, 1 & 2 Peter

Here's the accompanying podcast:

I feel bad for Peter.  To have fictional false narratives written of himself, that detail an existence contrary to what he really lived, would be a horrible experience.  

Not unlike Jesus’ earthly mother, Mary, who has an even more elaborate set of bogus lore about her conjured up by the Catholic Church, which has led to Catholics creating a version of the feminine “divine” in her name more resembling the “queen of heaven” pagan demonic diety as described in the Book of Jeremiah than her actual self, Peter's own narrative has been drummed up to support the false doctrines of Acts and the two epistles attributed to (but not written by) him in order to get people away from the True and Living Gospel of Jesus Christ.

As with Mary, Peter’s narrative is exploited by the Catholic Church to make him the first ever “pope” which means, "father," something Jesus said to never be called!

After researching the problems, contradictions, fallacies and impossibilities in Acts (as well as the fact that Peter could NOT have been the author of 1 and 2 Peter) for more than a couple years, I believe the Father has led me to see, as far as Peter’s personal history goes, a false version of his life began to be presented not only with the extra-biblical teachings of Catholicism, but within the very Bibles the Catholics gave us from the Council at Rome (circa 382 AD) when they set the "canon" as we have it until this very day (sans the intertestimental books (Apocrypha), which were still included until the 19th century).  

Briefly, in regard to 1 and 2 Peter, both epistles have been in question for centuries:

People writing in another person's name, known as pseudepigrapha, was unfortunately quite prevelant during ancient times.  The obvious benefits of doing so would be the weight, veracity and power one could gain by writing in the name of someone well regarded and considered powerful himself.

With regard to the standard critiques of the authorship of 1 Peter, I would add the author seems like a man parroting what he's heard about Jesus, rather than having been the person who would have had close interpersonal relationship with Him.  

It certainly seems more like a philosophical treatise than a man who you would think would be celebrating the Savior, especially since he knew the Savior personally, and that he would vigorously desire to share what the Savior actually said!  I mean, if you had the chance to sit down with Peter do you think you'd talk with the Greek approach to philosophy presented by the epistles or would you want to know what it was like to be with the Savior?  Wouldn't you want to know more about what the Savior said and did in his presence than what is revealed in the two epistles?

One could argue that Peter had written many documents over the course of his life, and that these two served another purpose.  What purpose would that be?  As we will show further in the blog, Jesus said multiple times that His Words are paramount and are the rock on which we build.  Is there any other purpose then than to point people to His Words?

The same criticisms of authorship apply to 2 Peter, which even Origen (early to mid 3rd century) and Eusebius (early 4th century) both labeled "disputed".  2 Peter was never fully accepted as authentic, but it was still included in the "canon" because it was said to have points of edification in it.  This is the thing about the "canon." These early "fathers" (which they are not) did not consider everything in the canon to be "God's Word" per se, especially regarding the epistles. They were treated more like sermons.  The question they asked when they couldn't be proven authentic was, "Is this epistle still edifying?" Edification, however, is all in the eye of the beholder.  I personally can't be edified by an author who lies about his identity and then portrays himself to have been involved in the Savior's life when he never even knew Him.  

As stated above, the primary reason I believe Peter's stories in Acts are mostly embellished or in many parts, completely fictional, as well as the fact that 1 and 2 Peter was not written by the Apostle himself, is based upon the fact the Peter of Acts nor the person writing 1 and 2 Peter seem to show any interest,  love or zeal in sharing his own experience with Jesus, nor do they expound or expand upon what he learned from Jesus as the Word of God or take any sort of deep dive into the First Testament, as Jesus was want to do. 

The false version of Peter presented by Acts seems to be conjured right after the upper room infilling of Apostles with the Holy Ghost in chapter 2 of Acts. It is at this point that Peter’s narrative begins to go off course, as Acts narrates portions of his life, sayings and teachings in such a way that when one considers the Peter of the Gospels and what he would have been exposed to, these post Gospels-era stories of Peter would not jibe with his training and instruction at the feet of Jesus. 

To begin to provide evidence for this claim, we must first address what Peter would have learned being in the presence of The Messiah for over 1200 nearly consecutive days, sans those times Jesus sent the apostles out to preach.  

Peter heard all of  Jesus’ preaching first hand, saw the miracles, was the one to say that Jesus was the Messiah and had his name changed to Peter (stone) from Simon because he stated this truth that Jesus is the Messiah, and it is this Truth (not Peter as the Catholics would have you believe in order to transfer that  power/authority to each consecutive "pope"), that is the Rock on which we stand.

Here Peter was also given the "keys to the kingdom," but this is something we all have been given, as you can see from Matthew 18:18: 

Peter also heard Jesus say that those that hear and do His words have built their house upon the rock, and the furious winds, rain and floods could not knock the house down that was built upon such a firm foundation.  Why do we not see Jesus' Words amplified in Acts, Paul's epistles or in pseudo-Peter's epistles (1 and 2 Peter)?  

Jesus says many times that "His sayings," or "His Words" are paramount.  Why did the presentation of Peter in Acts (as well as that of the other Apostles) do so little to show them teaching from Jesus' words?

In that light, Peter also heard Jesus say that He is the vine, and we are the branches, and if we abide in His Words and obey them, we will abide in Him.

How could someone who knew that Jesus Himself is the Word and that His words were so pivotal to our salvations do so little to preach that Word, in fact, as you'll see Acts 15 a little ahead in this blog, that Peter actually speaks against the Word and contradicts Jesus plain teachings about the law (as if Paul spoke the words through Peter instead of the Holy Ghost bringing to Peter's mind whatsoever Jesus had said unto him).  More later.

Peter also heard Jesus say in the accompanying scripture from John 14, “If ye love me, keep my commandments and I’ll send a Comforter” and the Holy Spirit would be the Father and the Son making their abode in us.  Notice also Jesus' emphasis on "keeping His Words..."

How does a man who heard all of this not try to turn everyone to the Words of Jesus and to the Torah and the Prophets as well since Jesus is The Word?

Continuing, Peter also heard Jesus preach the Sermon on the Mount where He addressed and tightened up what’s been written in the law.

If Peter heard Jesus with His own ears tell people to keep the law more perfectly, why would he not teach from the law and from Jesus' words himself? I ask these questions over and over again because it is these questions that began to make me see that the Peter we've been given in Acts and the epistles attributed to him COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE PETER THAT KNEW JESUS CHRIST.

(This is why I believe 1 John and Revelation were authentic, because it's clear the person who wrote these two works, actually knew the teachings of Jesus well enough to expound on them.)

Peter also heard Jesus’ interactions with the Pharisees, and how Jesus did not tolerate their traditions overriding God’s Word/The Torah/The Commandments.

How can this man, Peter, as well as the Book of Acts itself, be so on fire to talk of Jesus being the Messiah and getting people saved, do little to nothing to actually teach what Jesus said and taught?

Why do the epistles ascribed to Peter talk about Jesus in a somewhat nebulous way while doing very little to quote from Jesus directly or to even expound and expand upon what Jesus taught?  It’s as if the author of the epistles of Peter never knew Jesus himself, writing as if he had only on a second hand knowledge of Jesus.  The author says he knew Jesus, but where is the evidence of that?

NOTE FOR PODCAST: READ SOME OF 1 and 2 Peter

Anyone who had read Paul’s epistles could have written what was attributed to Peter.  I’ve heard some people say that Paul himself probably wrote 1 and 2 Peter, but I truly think that those epistles were written well after both Peter and Paul left this world.  One reason, especially when you consider 2 Peter, is that the author of 2 Peter likens Paul's epistles to "scripture," something that never would have been done in his life time.  The only scripture, at that time, was the Torah and the Prophets.  

And we see here that the pseudo-writer of 2 Peter also props up Paul as "beloved brother" with "wisdom" which is "hard to be understood," but those who are "unlearned and unstable wrest" (wrestle) "unto their own destruction."  Very convenient that someone writing in Peter's name would essentially take all criticism or examination of Paul's writings and claims off the table, and threaten damnation to all who do.  

Meanwhile, the apostle John does the exact opposite when it comes to people speaking on behalf of Jesus, saying,

Learning that even Eusebius questioned the veracity of 2 Peter freed me up from this demonic shackle to Paul found in 2 Peter.  And, John the Apostle, as always, provides liberation and freedom to examine the claims of those who call themselves apostles as well there in 1 John.

Jesus actually celebrates the Church at Ephesus for sussing out false apostles:

Going on with our questions regarding this pseudo-Peter, why also does the writer of 1 Peter, who, if he really was Peter would have seen Jesus crucified first hand, literally parrot what Paul says in the Romans 13, that those in authority will not hurt those who keep their laws?  Peter saw the only perfect man who ever lived killed by these same so called authorities.  

Here in both 1 Peter and Romans 13, we have supposed apostles of Jesus telling us the exact opposite of what Jesus had to say about rulers.  

Instead of telling us to honor them as supreme and to recognize them as literal "ministers of God," Jesus warned us to beware of men in power.

This is not to mention that throughout the Torah and the prophets people were falsely accused and killed for righteousness, beginning with Abel, and then all the prophets who were persecuted thereafter.  Jesus even mentions this Himself when he says the blood of the prophets would be upon the Pharisees because their fathers were responsible for the deaths of righteous Abel all the way to Zacharias.  Jesus is clearly pointing out that the righteous are punished by the leadership of this world, not given praise.

The arguments in Romans and 1 Peter in no way jibe with Jesus' teachings on the matter when it came to the powers that controlled governments of men.

Returning to Acts, Did Peter and the other apostles, who had been told to go “into all the world” and to “all nations” actually set up a hippie commune in Jerusalem where they essentially holed up with the apostles making themselves bankers (instead of ministers) who took everyone’s money to “redistribute” as they saw fit? 

Not once in the Gospels does Jesus ever tell them to sit in Jerusalem and form a Vatican like center of power from which all monies will be collected and redistributed. For me, this 100% is planted narrative to turn Believers into indentured slaves and serfs while those in authority wield all financial power and control.  But Jesus said we would all be brethren.

Returning to the idea of the apostles collecting money, when Jesus dealt with the rich young ruler, He told him to sell what he had and give to the poor, not to the ministry!  When Jesus sent the apostles and the seventy out to minister, he sent them out with NO MONEY!  

This next contradiction between Peter's life as reflected in the Gospels and the Acts narrative blew me away.  How can the man who lied and denied Jesus Christ three times publicly, be the one to speak death over Ananias and Saphira for lying themselves by understating how much money they had sold their home for?  Why did they rate such punishment from a man who had been a forgiven liar himself?  Could this instead be an inserted text to put fear in people that they better give to the Church, and a full amount, or else?  Is this using fear as a shakedown tactic?  (Yes).  Did Peter really do this??? I trow not!

Can you believe the same man that was forgiven by the Father and Son for three separate lies in one sitting regarding His relationship with Jesus would be used as the messenger of death to someone else who had just given a ton of money to the ministry, but lied about the amount?  I am not buying this.  None of it.  Peter and the Apostles DID NOT TURN INTO BANKERS, GRIFTERS AND FRAUDSTERS!

In addition, when the disciples asked Jesus if they should call down fire from heaven against these people who had rejected him, Jesus rebuked them, saying, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man came not to destroy men's lives, but to save them"! 

How then does Peter speaking death over an Ananias and Saphira make any sense unless it's a planted scripture by those who would want to use the scriptures to rob people blind?!?!?

Let's now visit the scripture where Jesus tells us to love our enemies and to pray for those who despitefully use us.  

How is it that in the case of Ananias and Saphira, who had sold a property and given the lion share of the proceeds, don't get the opportunity to repent or prayer for their lying?  

And, why did the false witnesses in the Sanhedrin who lied against Jesus not drop dead? 

Now let's change gears to the miracles that occurred in Acts.  I think it's true that the God would follow His Truths, when they are done in the name of Jesus, with signs following, as it is written in Mark 16:

But we also know from Deuteronomy 13 that false prophets will come along and exhibit miracles to sidetrack the people.  The real Peter (may he please stand up) is not a false prophet, but the one in Acts is (especially in regard to changing the gospel in Acts 15, more later), and it's interesting that "miracles" such as people being healed by walking beneath Peter's shadow (when no name of Jesus is declared) along with Paul's Damascus Road "miracle" conversion (told three times with contradictory facts and plagiarizing Euripides' play "Bacchae"), Paul's miracle of suffering a venomous snake bite without harm, as well as Paul professing miracles to everyone constantly when reporting what the Father had supposedly done through "his" ministry each time he presented himself to the "Apostles and Elders" in Jerusalem (who were those apostles and elders???), well then, you have the perfect combination of miracles mixed with false doctrines to fool the people, especially when it comes to what occurred in Acts 15 and 21 (more later).

So we see what I think are embellishments of miracles to prove these pseudo-apostles are anointed by the Father in order to give them veracity.  This veracity will override people's defenses when it comes to identifying them as false prophets because they cause people to turn off their brains and do no further examination.

The Catholic Church, who regularly "appoints" sainthood, requires there to be proven miracles for those so appointed.  These miracles serve as a cloak for false doctrines.

Now we may move on to another miracle involving Peter: the descending sheet of abominable beasts vision.

Knowing that Jesus had commanded the apostles to go to all nations already, why did Peter need the descending sheet of unclean animals where he was told to slay and eat (against the Father’s everlasting law) as an allegory of the Father wanting them to preach to the Gentiles?  He literally implies that without this vision, he never would have done so. This makes no sense in light of what Jesus had told him and all the apostles right before LIFTING OFF THE GROUND AND FLYING AWAY TOWARD HEAVEN.  How could that be, that Peter would forget such a command and need this vision?  I cannot process this.  How could all twelve forget???  We know all twelve weren't in Jerusalem by Acts 10 because guess what, many had already gone to the nations!!!

As well, the ending of the Gospel of Mark reports that the apostles went everywhere preaching already.  There was no need for this vision to know that they should do so.  

Acts is completely bi-polar and at times, multi-personalitied in its contradictions.  (See Paul’s three tellings of his Damascus Road “conversion” for a good example of this.)

More questions abound.  Peter, knowing everything Jesus had taught, having been a first person eye and ear witness, having heard Jesus say, that not one jot or tittle would be done away with in the law, and that they who do and teach the law shall be great in the kingdom of heaven, why would Peter ever regurgitate an exact replica of Paul’s gospel (not Jesus’) in Acts 15, where Peter essentially begs the question, "why should the Gentiles be required to keep a law we ourselves were not able to keep?"  

What???? Jesus never taught this.  He told people to “go and sin no more” and “be ye perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect.”  Jesus never said we can’t keep the law.  The Gospel, and even the teachings of the Torah, had always been to repent of breaking God's commandments and to make things right.  Never did anyone prior to Acts and Paul tell us that we CAN'T DO IT!  And certainly that when we do fail we can't repent and make it right!

A young man asked Jesus what he should do to inherit eternal life, and Jesus went straight to the 10 commandments to outline what would lead the young man to that end.  Was that wrong of Jesus to turn the man to the Commandments???

But Peter talks as if following Jesus gives you excuses for breaking the Father’s laws, instead of the Father giving us the opportunity to repent and resume keeping it!

In addition, James concludes in Acts 21 that Jewish Believers in Jesus were to KEEP THE LAW, how is it that Peter would say in Acts 15 that this is not even possible and yet now the Jewish Believers are required to do it?  Yes, all have sinned, but all are capable of repentance.  This is what Jesus’ sacrifice was for, to enable us to receive forgiveness and His propitiation (payment) for our repented sin.

As applies to the Gentiles, if Jesus told them in Matthew 28 to go and teach all nations whatsoever I have (past tense) commanded you, why would James conclude that the Jews can keep the law, but the Gentiles should only be required to keep the four things (no fornication, or eating things sacrificed to idols, or eating things strangled, or eating blood)? 

This ministry is called Jesus Not Paul/Acts.  But if we could make the name longer it would be Jesus Not Paul/Acts/Pseudo-Peter.

We truly believe that Peter as represented in Acts and the epistles falsely attributed to him, is not the actual Peter, but a fabrication.  We could theorize that if these false representations of Peter were true, then he must have “broken bad,” too, as Paul had done. However, because Peter’s name is written on the foundation of the New Jerusalem, we believe there is no way that he would ever be counted among those who would not keep Torah and teach others to do so, against Jesus’ Words in Matthew 5. 

The Peter the Catholics gave us was aberrated and smeared in the very Bibles the Catholics gave us.  For this reason, you must continue to stand on the teachings and requirements of Jesus Himself found in the Gospels of Matthew and John, as well as in the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ.  I truly believe the Father protected the truths of His Son's teachings in these books with the Bible.

Epilogue

The Bible is Not a Book. It’s a library of Books.  At the moment, we’ve been given 66 of them (interesting number) by the Council at Rome headed by a man who called himself “Pope,” which means “father”.  His name was Damasus.  He was over the Roman Church as it completely paganized and took authority unto itself.  It stands to reason that what we’ve been given has been tampered with.

I still believe the Gospels of Matthew and John, as well as the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ are in order, as they stand in line with what came before, line upon line precept upon precept, but some of the books placed our library are tares sown in among the wheat. 

Acts and 1 and 2 Peter are just those books.  They paint a false narrative of a man who is not guilty of that which is ascribed to him, in the same way that the lore surrounding Mary that Catholicism has provided is full of lies to lead her to represent the pagan female demonic diety in the Catholic Church.

We have also been lied to that the Bible itself is perfect, and that all 66 books are from the Father.  This could not be farther from the truth.  But this lie has been planted deep in the soil of most our minds and is what causes many of us to suspend our own reading comprehension, to so deeply effect us that while reading, we don’t see the actual words that are there, rather the brainwashed narratives the lying false Church has told us our entire lives.  

Many “Christians” who otherwise can read, comprehend, examine and analyze lose all their faculties when reading the Bible and are unable to judge between right and wrong, all due the Peter Ruckman-like taught fervor that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, so much so you can even do math like word games with it.

This is utter nonsense.  We must do as John says in 1 John and test things, try the spirits whether they be of God, for many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Rome is the source of many of those false prophets, and they’ve take Bible characters who were indeed to servants of the Most High and twisted them into false prophets with bogus stories meant to hook you in and to break the Father’s commandments by following their erroneous leads.  

This is why the Father warned in Deuteronomy 13 to be careful of false prophets who come with miracles but get you to serve another god.  The Peter of Acts and 1 and 2 Peter does just that.  Follow Jesus, Not Paul or Acts or pseudo-Peter.  If Peter could talk to you today, he would tell you that very thing.