Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 12-26-2006, 02:58 PM

Ro 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Gamera · 12-26-2006, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian231

I just got done with taking a bible class at my local community college and after studying Paul's letters(the 7 he wrote) very closely I was wondering if Peter actually knew Jesus while he was alive or if this was written into the story later on. In Paul's letters it's obvious that Peter and Paul are rivals and this just doesn't add up for me or make any sense. The question I keep asking myself is if Peter was actually an original follower of Jesus then why on earth is Paul arguing with him about anything. Paul's letters really don't provide much to go on but he never treats Peter with any sort of respect for having supposedly known and follwed Jesus. The few times that Paul mentions Peter he speaks of him as if he is someone seperate from "the twelve" and never actually says that Peter had known Jesus or was a follower of his. It's only in the gospels and the book of acts that Peter is said to have been a follower of Jesus.

I was surrounded by a bunch of crazy fundamentalists so I wasn't comfortable bringing this question up in class so hopefully someone here can answer my question.

Peter apparently didn't "get" what Jesus preached when it came to gentiles (and there are many specific examples in the gospels whose point is that the apostles fail to grasp something Jesus is telling him, so much so that Jesus gets exasperated with them -- Luke 22:38, Matthew 6:11). James didn't get it either.

Paul did, and claims to have confronted Peter about it. There is nothing inherently implausible about this.

I do agree, however, that it is significant that Peter and James were at odds with Paul. Because of that, one would expect some mss in which they criticized Paul's interpretation of Jesus. But none exists. They had every motive to have exposed Paul if he inaccurately characterized Jesus's claims. But they apparently didn't. Which suggests Paul accurate characterized what Jesus claimed about himself.

A more interesting question is (a) why Peter claims to have been the apostle to the gentiles (something Paul denies in Galatians), and why in Acts Peter apparently gets a vision that straightens him out as to the gentile/Law question (did this happen after his altercation with Paul? Or before? And if before, why didn't it stick?)

Gamera · 12-26-2006, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

To require that Paul explicitly say that the Peter he mentions in Galatians was "a follower of a living Jesus" seems to me to arbitrarily set the bar too high. Paul is attempting to correct errors among Christian converts, not writing an early history of Christianity. I'll bet that if such an expression were in Galatians, some would discount it as "an obvious interpolation."

Bingo!

Paul assumes his readers know the basic history, the role of Peter, etc. What he is at pains to express is his role in all this, which by his own admission is an odd one, having persecuted the church and then having been commissed by the resurrected Jesus directly to evangelize, without being taught anything from Jesus' apostles.

Apparenlty this unusual claim was a fly in the ointment that his detractors used against him.

Ga' 2: 6 And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) --those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me; 7

spin · 12-26-2006, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Bingo!

Paul assumes his readers know the basic history, the role of Peter, etc.

Speak up, Gamera, you're talking through your hat. You don't know what his readers basically know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

What he is at pains to express is his role in all this, which by his own admission is an odd one, having persecuted the church and then having been commissed by the resurrected Jesus directly to evangelize, without being taught anything from Jesus' apostles.

If you noticed that verse from Romans I quoted, it indicated that you are working under a misapprehension of the significance of "apostle".

spin

Amaleq13 · 12-26-2006, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Paul claims to have "met" Jesus after he was resurrected, and considered himself an apostle for that reason,...

Yes, an apostle just like the others. Hence the objection to the prior assertion.

Quote:

...though he admits its an odd form of apostleship.

There no suggestion that there is anything odd about how or when Jesus called Paul to be an apostle. He identifies himself as "last" and "unfit" because of his prior persecutions.

Gamera · 12-27-2006, 04:54 PM

[QUOTE=Amaleq13;4037024]

Quote:

There no suggestion that there is anything odd about how or when Jesus called Paul to be an apostle. He identifies himself as "last" and "unfit" because of his prior persecutions

No, he thought it was odd and calls his apostleship "untimely born" because it happened after Jesus' death, unlike that of the others. It's kind of odd to be untimely born.

Gamera · 12-27-2006, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If you noticed that verse from Romans I quoted, it indicated that you are working under a misapprehension of the significance of "apostle".

spin

You're working under the misapprehension that the word had a single meaning. It clearly changes in context, like most words.

Toto · 12-27-2006, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

No, he thought it was odd and calls his apostleship "untimely born" because it happened after Jesus' death, unlike that of the others. It's kind of odd to be untimely born.

A common misconception.

The delicate English phrase "untimely born" is a very inexact translation of the Greek ektrwma. The term Paul uses can be translated "miscarriage" or "abortion" - indicating that he was born too early to be fully formed. There is no implication that Paul was born after Jesus' death.

See the discussion here

Quote:

In the mystic cosmogony of these Gnostic circles, "the abortion" was the crude matter cast out of the Pleroma or world of perfection. This crude and chaotic matter was in the cosmogonical process shaped into a perfect "aeon'' by the World-Christ; that is to say, was made into a world-system by the ordering or cosmic power of the Logos. "The abortion" was the unshaped and unordered chaotic matter which had to be separated out, ordered and perfected, in the macrocosmic task of the "enformation according to substance," while this again was to be completed on the soteriological side by the microcosmic process of the "enformation according to gnosis" or spiritual consciousness. As the world-soul was perfected by the World-Christ, so was the individual soul to be perfected and redeemed by the individual Christ.

From Mead

Casper · 12-27-2006, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

No, he thought it was odd and calls his apostleship "untimely born" because it happened after Jesus' death, unlike that of the others.

So how old was he when he wrote his epistles, earliest date? assuming a resurrection circa 33 CE of course.

And he is later a contemporary of this man who is old enough to be his father or grandfather? And schooling him? Sounds backwards.

Doesn't that whole thing make you scratch your head? I think that is what the OP was getting at.

Boro Nut · 12-27-2006, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian231

Did Peter actually know Jesus?

Actually that's a very good point. Christians have to admit that Peter knew Jesus in the biblical sense, or that he didn't. Either way they're fucked.

Boro Nut

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-26-2006, 02:58 PM	#21
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Ro 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.