Imminent FulfillmentImmortality,  Safety, Empowerment, Equality, KnowledgeUnity, Society

Should not intelligent, reasonable men of good will be able to agree on all things that matter?

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to
  one who is striking at the root."
- Henry David Thoreau
Site Sections, Subject List, Article Synopses and other features

Introduction Material
Introduction Articles
Word Definitions
Human Condition

Christianity Material
Bible/Canon Issues
Christendom Analyzed

Jesus Material
Jesus' Teachings
Aspects of Jesus
5 Gospels Canon

Philosophy Material
Academic Education
Paradigm Material
Philosophers of Note
Philosophical Issues
Philosophy Metaphysics
Psychological Issues
Religious Miscellaneous
Sociological Material
Theological Basics
Theological Issues
Theological Misc

Theological Skeptical

Cosmology, Creation,
Geophysical Material

Cosmology Material
Creation Issues
Geophysical Material

Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Chronology Revision
Golden Age Themes
History Revision
Misc Ancient Myth Material
Modern Mythology Material
Psycho-Catastrophe Articles
Saturn-Jupiter Material
Saturnian Reconstruction
Symbol Development
Venus-Mars Material
1994 Velikovsky Symposium

Miscellaneous Material
Book Critiques Links
Misc Biology Links
Misc Issues/Conclusions
Poetry & Fun Material
PDF Download Files
Lecture & Video Links
Site Features Links
Site article checklist
Spiritual Products online store


The undue deference to the authority of the self-appointed so-called
"Apostles" and the Bible is nothing short of both idiocy and idolatry .

The Twin Pillars of Christendom
Updated: 06/09/2021

The structure and theology of institutionalized Christianity are not founded upon the teachings and message of Yeshua, but are based primarily upon the thinking and understanding of Peter and Paul with a great deal of Judeo tradition and mysticism mixed in. This largest of the world's religions uses Yeshua as the masthead, but the ship is built and powered by the dogmas and doctrines laid down by these two men, and carries a load of misunderstanding as cargo. No wonder it has never delivered much more than being just another oppressive coping mechanism for the human condition.


Peter is the disciple most often rebuked by Yeshua and the one Yeshua called Satan–Blocker or Adversary.  Peter is the disciple who was afraid to admit that he even knew Yeshua and publicly lied three times about it.  Peter was probably the oldest and most ignorant disciple, the most set in his ways and thinking.  He is probably correctly portrayed as ebullient, overconfident, a take charge guy, least prone to contemplate and do any deep thinking.

Apparently, outside of some temporary humility after his emphatic denial in the courtyard, Peter never learned anything very significant from his time and closeness to Yeshua. This is clearly indicated by his course of action before and after the resurrection.  He was so far out of sync with Yeshua's agenda, message, mission and power that he drew a sword and hacked off the ear of one of the men that came to arrest Yeshua in the garden.

Peter is the disciple who led six others back to their "wonderful" and "rewarding", albeit smelly, slimy occupation of fishing naked at night, when they had the authority from Yeshua to enter the kingship and receive the power of God.  Peter was the one jealously concerned with John's relationship and destiny instead of his own.  Peter is the one who violated the example and good advice of Yeshua in going out and publicly condemning the Jews and "converting" masses of people. But converted to what? Obviously not to the truth!  And he got tossed in prison and had to be rescued for doing it.

In the Hebrew culture of the day, there was a cultural ethic over-emphasize the intellectual/spiritual authority of the oldest. Peter was the oldest of the disciples and he is the one who supported a formal, hierarchal authority system–in contrast to the explicit instructions of Yeshua–by "electing" a twelfth "apostle" to replace Judas Iscariot.  He is the one who set himself up with James and Andrew as religious leaders in Jerusalem and established a powerful triumvirate which began to pass new rules concerning believer behavior while focusing on building a mundane organization.

Peter is the one who solicited and pressured for donations for the "Lord's" work, and wound up condemning and frightening to death the two superstitious but reluctant pledgers, Ananias and Sapphira. The result was, "Great fear came upon the whole congregation." This is a good result? Sure, this is what we all, including God, need? More fear and less adoration for his compassion and good news? Not!!!

After watching Yeshua breaking Jewish laws and talking and ministering to Romans, Phoenicians, Samaritans, Greeks, lepers, prostitutes and thieves, Peter was so far out of touch with Yeshua's values that he was not even willing to go with some Gentiles to share information about him until he had a special "vision".  This, in spite of the fact that Yeshua's last words were to the effect that they could now go to any "nation, kindred, tongue, and people" and invite them into the Kingship of the heavens. Apparently, this ignorant and thick-headed fisherman was singularly unsuited to be a leader of the ecclesia, and we can question whether he ever learned a thing except to be temporarily humble when canvassed by Yeshua later concerning the quality of his love. Yet he has been made into the first Pope. Incredible, outlandish, outrageous! You can't make this stuff up!

Peter may be the cornerstone of the world's oldest formal Christian organization, but it is a proven system of tyranny if left unchecked by more humane civil forces.  The religion of Peter, pitifully obtuse and focused on rituals, sacraments, liturgy, pageantry, architecture, statuary, and hierarchy mundane, is one of the primary cornerstones for all of what is called Christianity. In other words, Peter was a spiritual moron! Not so good, is it?


Paul considered himself to be a kind of "Pharisee of Pharisees" in Judaism, and his earliest relationship with Christianity was to vigorously prosecute and persecute them all the way to advocating for killing them. This meant that he was intimately familiar some of their beliefs, but more importantly their ardor of belief. On the road to Damascus, he had some kind of quasi-supernatural experience that turned him around. Thus, he went to Jerusalem and spent some time with the leaders Peter and James.

When Paul went to Corinth he revealed to them what he had been told by Peter and James, the brother of Yeshua, with whom he later claimed to have spent 15 days previously. It is clear that Paul got his basic information about what had happened from Peter and James. There is no mention of him talking with John and Thomas. John was of low social standing and the youngest, and thus had little influence on what was happening in Jerusalem. Thomas was the intellectual of the "Twelve", and probably held himself aloof somewhat. Both of these men were probably withdrawn somewhat at the time, doing more thinking than talking, while trying almost desperately to understand all the implications of what they had heard and experienced from Yeshua. But not Peter. He seemed to be always ready to hold forth.

A more literal translation of the description of
Paul in Greek reads, “A man of middling size,
and his hair was scanty, and his legs were a
little crooked, and his knees were far apart; he
had large eyes, and his eyebrows met, and his
nose was somewhat long.”
- Stephen Miller

While getting some basic information about Yeshua from them, Paul was not beholden to the Christian leadership at Jerusalem for his wider, earlier education at Jerusalem nor for his conversion. At some point Paul became VERY disenchanted with the leadership in Jerusalem, and became bitter opponents with Peter. Peter and Paul were like oil and water.

John Fitzgerald writes, "Luke's happy account of the so-called Apostolic Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:4-29) whitewashes over the many running disputes and quarrels between Paul and the Jerusalem Church over issues like circumcision and eating with gentiles/ None of the fierce debates that Paul describes appears in Acts: Instead, there is a warm welcome and friendly discussion of the unfortunate misunderstanding, and great rejoicing by all afterwards (Acts 15:7-11, 31).
     "Compare that with Paul's own words in (Gal 2:2-6), in which he can barely hide his contempt for the Jerusalem apostles, and reveals just how close early Christianity came to a total split between Peter's and Paul's brand of the faith.  It is an amazingly paranoid, venomous and arrogant account of this private backroom deal with the Jerusalem leaders.
     "Paul calls his accusers false believers and spies, and he "knows" that they were really secretly brought in  (by his many enemies) to enslave them (Gal 2:4). Far from receiving a warm welcome, having a friendly hashing out of differences, and submitting to their decrees, Paul refused to go along with them "even for a "moment"(!) (Gal 2:5) - Nailed, Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All, LuLu, 2010, p. 153.

Paul's debt to Gnosticism is shown in his vocabulary and
basic framework of concepts: for example, in his distinction
between 'spiritual' man (pneumatikos) and 'natural' man
(psychikos); and in his terms for cosmic powers of evil, such as
‘principality' (arche), 'power' (exousia) and 'might' (dunamis).[*]

It has been justly said that there is more of Paul than Yeshua in orthodox Christianity.  Just as the hierarchal, dark, ignorant, superstitious side of Christianity is much based on Peter, the zealous, fanatical, proselytizing, pretentious theological and evangelical side is represented by Paul and his thinking. So, let's take a critical look at this devout Pharisee claimed to be a prophet and spokesman for God:

  • Paul was an extremist, a fanatic: He thought of himself as the Pharisee of Pharisees, and had made a career out of actively prosecuting Christians to be put to death.

  • Paul's conversion process: While on the road to Damascus he had a "conversion" experience, the basis for this conversion being a private, unverifiable supernatural visit from Yeshua who struck him blind. Not only is this something that Yeshua would never do, but we only have Paul's word for it that this really happened. This could easily have been a partial complex seizure episode or an hallucination.

  • Paul's relationships: Paul was not initially nor probably ever completely accepted by the Disciples, but he became such a strong factor in the early church community that they didn't bother to have a power struggle when he allied himself with the existing organizational structure.

  • Paul was legalistic: Despite his vaunted reputation for being the great promoter of salvation by grace, he couldn't get rid of all traces of direct legalism. Paul really believed in fiat law–even though he chafed under it–so much that he invented a pretentious way around it. After taking his position of righteousness based upon this pretension, including some pretended mystical transaction whereby claiming the merits of Yeshua would negate it, he put his stamp of approval on some of the new fiat rules adopted by the early Christian community.

  • Paul was a tortured soul, railed against his "sinful flesh" and wallowed in guilt.

  • Paul clung to cultural conventions: He allowed mere cultural conventions to become part of the congregational code for good behavior, such as the demand for women to cover their hair.

  • Paul's proselytizing: For over 22 years he roamed that part of the world like a proselytizing madman. Standing in the temples and on street corners, he argued with the Jews and Greeks alike, despite Yeshua advice not to "cast your pearls".

  • Paul's weakness of conviction: After taking a position on the Old Testament sacraments, rites, and ceremonies that they were now invalid, he allowed other people to manipulate him into observing the old cleansing sacrament when he "knew" better.

  • Paul showed appalling judgment in human affairs: One time he listened to people from a distant church community give just their one side of a dispute and then pronounced judgment without even hearing the other side. No wise person would do this.

  • Paul was legalistically judgmental: He even took upon himself the authority to "excommunicate" a man because of who he was living with.

  • Paul's pretentious dogma of "substitution righteousness": This is a pretentious system based on legalistic, nonsense mystical righteousness, where a person can exonerate himself legally with an acceptance of the righteousness of Yeshua standing in as his substitute. This is right out of the Old Testament sacrificial system, which should have been dead and buried! Easy, and if you say the right words, talk yourself into it, or have the last rights administered before you have a chance to sin again, you're saved–someday! This is tantamount to God devising a system for fooling or blinkering himself, Outrageous!

  • Paul's theology and belief system: These were NOT grounded in the life and message of Yeshua. To the end his thinking was still based on wrong concepts of God from the Old Testament.

  • Paul's advice to believers: Any advice that Paul gives must be seen as being given in the context of a fanatic with a false understanding of the Gospel.

  • Paul was focused on behavior: His focus was not on the truth about God as demonstrated by Yeshua. So much so that he despaired for himself. It is the truth that will set us free, not morbid focus on ourselves and despair over our own behavior. This shows an appalling lack of understanding human nature! The cornerstone or anchor of our "will" is what we believe; it is NOT our fervor.

  • Paul helped institutionalize the church: He fostered and became an apologist for hierarchal and authoritarian organization.

  • Paul was irascible: He was a man who apparently could not get along even with those close to him, and who never came into unity with anyone.

  • Paul became a self-appointed martyr: The Romans were reluctant to execute him but he forced the issue and needlessly died, while cold, alone and complaining about it, in prison. This is not the good news from Yeshua, yet he had the audacity to suggest that other people emulate him.

  • Paul denied the imminence: He clearly did NOT understand the imminent salvation, primal creative empowerment and immortality that are the real substance that Yeshua offered to us. He didn't even deal with these ultimately most meaningful dimensions of the Gospel.

  • Paul quoted the Old Testament instead of Yeshua: Given the a priori assumption that the Bible, especially the New Testament, is the word of God, Christianity continues to give Paul free reign to interpret and make "clear" the misunderstood "esoteric" issues dealt with by Yeshua in the Gospels.  While Paul–in his magnum opus of the letter to the  Romans–reiterates in his own way a few of the exhortations given by Yeshua, only once ("You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Matt 22:39) does Paul ever quote Yeshua; while he overwhelmingly quotes the Old Testament for support of his theological and soteriological positions.  This, in spite of the fact that among other examples or passages in his letters, the spirit or meaning of his little doxology of Romans 11:33-36 is in sharp contrast and mutually exclusive with the message of Yeshua recorded later by the disciple John (John 1:18, 6:40, 8:19,47, 12:48, 14:7,9,26, 15:24, 16:13, 17:3,26).

For additional insight and information See: Christianity and Hellenism

It should be clear that Paul uses the Old Testament and thereby Judaism as his foundation or cornerstone instead of Yeshua. This is pathetic, pitiful, even outrageous! Christians should be ashamed of themselves for "deifying" Paul and elevating his thinking to be the word of God.

Here is what scholar Gerd Ludemann has to say about Paul and the other non-Gospel contributing authors of the New Testament:

"That the apostle to the Gentiles was a towering figure in primitive Christianity–indeed the real founder of the Church–is certain. But the view that his letters and the rest of the New Testament scriptures represent God's word is a crime against reason and humanity. Studying them today should make us recognize that such thinking offers no useful key to the future. Their image of God cannot claim the respect of nonbelievers..." Gerd Ludemann, Free Inquiry, April-May, 2007 p. 31

Here is the position of Thomas Jefferson on Judaism and the "apostle" Paul:

The Old Testament was of no interest to Jefferson, who regarded Yeshua as a reformer of "the depraved religion of his own country." He further repudiated the writings of the Apostle Paul, whom he considered the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Yeshua." See: The Jefferson Bible  Jeferson's Rationalist Bible,
Richard Ostling,- The Associated Press

Here is how a young (and naive) student of philosophy encountering Western theology for the first time characterizes it.

"Even more disturbing to me at the time was the curious fact that those who seemed to have the greatest respect for, and the most intimate knowledge of, the Bible–those who actually knew Greek for example!–were precisely those whose theology I found most appalling. I'll probably never forget the time, after a long and heated argument with the pastor of a Calvinistic church, that I read carefully Romans 9 for the first time. I was not only shocked; I fell into a deep depression as well. This was as bad as Gordon Clark! Of course it never occurred to me at the time that I was simply reading Clark into the text, or that my naive view of revelation needed considerable modification. What did occur to me was that the message of the text seemed clear: According to Paul, God loved Jacob but hated Esau; and not only that, God has divided the entire human race into vessels of mercy, or objects of his love, and vessels of wrath, or objects of his hatred. Concerning such teaching, moreover, the Apostle seemed to ask exactly the right questions (first about justice and then about finding fault), but his answers seemed utterly absurd in the first case and not a real answer at all in the second. In the end, I decided I could no longer be a Christian in any orthodox sense.

"If Paul really taught, as Augustine and many of the Protestant Reformers insist he did, that God restricts his mercy to a chosen few, then Paul was, if not an outright fraud, just another confused and small-minded religious zealot. I believed that then, and I continue to believe it today."

Twin Pillars never decoupled

The bottom line is that these two men–so lionized and sanctified by Christendom–obviously never decoupled themselves adequately from their old religion, and yet they and their concepts have been made into the twin pillars of Christian thinking and practice. Nobody even seems to notice how outrageous this really is! Not so good, is it?

[*]  Hyam Maccoby, "Chapter Nine", The Sacred Executioner, Thames & Hudson, 1982

Home   Site Sections   Article Map   Contact   Store   Contributions   Survey