ApostateAbe

In Paul's letter to the Galatians, chapters 2 and 3, Paul writes of meeting Peter (also calling him Cephas) and getting angry in Peter's face over whether or not Christians should be circumcised. Paul seems to treat Peter as an important leader of the Christian cult. In all of the gospels, Peter is reported as a direct disciple of Jesus, seemingly the most important follower Jesus had.

Peter apparently was not a myth. So, if Jesus was only a myth, how do you explain Peter? I can think of several potential solutions, but I would like to know your solution.

Does anyone know a proposed solution from Doherty, Wells, Price, Hoffman, Freke, Gandy, Murdock or anyone else? Thanks.

aa5874

How can you use the NT as an historical source for Jesus, Peter and Paul?

The NT is NOT credible. The report in the Gospels that Peter was a disciple is no more credible than Jesus ascended to heaven.

Let us examine the information in the Gospels about Peter.

1. Peter reportedly saw Jesus walk on water and was himself saved from drowning by Jesus the water-walker.

2. It is reported that Peter saw Jesus transfigure with the resurrected Moses and Elijah conversing with him.

3. Peter was supposedly a witness to the empty tomb and preached that Jesus was resurrected.

4. Peter is reported to have seen Jesus after he was resurrected where he conversed and ate fish with Jesus.

5. Peter was supposedly a witness to the ascension of Jesus through clouds.


There is really no historical evidence that Peter did exist. He witnessed non-events and was a participant in the very non-events.

Peter can be considered a fictitious character.

Now, Paul could not have met Peter, he was a fictitious character in the Jesus story.

The Pauline writers are fiction writers.
.

storytime

Peter seemingly is the most suspecious follower Jesus had. Jesus seems to pay more attention to this one disciple than any of the others. Jesus even warned Peter that Satan desired to sift him as wheat, and added "but I have prayed for thee, that when thou art converted..."

If Jesus were god-in-the-flesh, why did he pray to himself?

But who was Peter that he needed to be converted?

How to explain Peter? Aside from Jesus, a main character in the passion play, maybe?

aa5874

The historicity of Peter cannot be argued from the very same source that presented him as a fictitious character. The Bible cannot be used as a corroborative source for itself while its VERACITY is being questioned.

Credible external sources are needed for Peter, none can be found.

ApostateAbe

The question is for those who think that Jesus was only a myth. To me, Peter is explained as a disciple and successor to Jesus as the leader of the cult. I think that because my model accepts that Jesus was a human being. But I am not sure how advocates of the mythical-Jesus position explain Peter. aa5874 apparently thinks that Peter was just another fictional character, but I know that aa5874 does not generally represent MJ advocates. What do you think? Who was Peter?

storytime

And Peter was stark naked on a fishing boat. Upon seeing Jesus ashore, Peter jumps into the sea, I suppose to hide his nakedness. Weren't no fig leaves around. Later he eats fish that Jesus cooked for the crew.

It's one thing that a dead corpse had risen after three days, with spear holes in its side, but it's another thing that a dead corpse cooking fish is supposed to be an appealing entertainment. In fact it might be a horror story of those times. But maybe this is a puzzle that we're supposed to figure out, a hidden message we are supposed to find in the screen play. A passionate fiction. And only those creative Jews could have imagined such a tale to compete with Roman theatrics.

storytime

Ok, if you're going to see Peter as a real person, and Jesus also, then the storyline needs examination for its purpose. Evidence in the story strongly suggests that Peter is Satan, the upsurper of the word of God due to Peter's overriding the commandments of God and bringing idol worshipers into the kingdom[temple] of God. Why did Peter wait until after the death of Jesus to do this abominable thing? What then does this story teach the Jews?

spin

Peter is mentioned only in Gal 2:7-8 and nowhere else in the Pauline corpus. Paul usually refers to someone called Cephas, as in the rest of Galatians and in 1 Corinthians. The mention of Peter in Gal 2:7-8 is totally unexpected given Paul's use of the name Cephas. In fact the reference to Peter sits poorly in its present context. Verse 7 attaches only with difficulty with what came before it (how does the "to the contrary" tounantion work?) and the exclusive commission to Peter contradicts the shared commission of the pillars in the follow verse. The text reads well without vv.7-8 and those verses represent a status quo doctrine of Petrine ascendancy. One cannot assume that Peter and Cephas refer to the same person despite the later gospel material tying the two names together, for in the Epistle of the Apostles these two names occur together in a list of names of apostles, ie two separate figures side by side named Peter and Cephas.

2 We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches of the east and the west, of the north and the south declaring and imparting unto you that which concerneth our Lord Jesus Christ

So the presence of the name Cephas does not imply a reference to Peter, though its presence is a convenient hook for later orthodoxy. The mention of Peter in Gal 2:7-8 has all the earmarks of an orthodox interpolation. Nothing can be made out of its presence in Galatians.


spin

ApostateAbe

OK, I think I get it. Do you think that Paul's (or the false Paul's) writing of the dispute with Peter was meant to make Peter fill the role of the bad guy?

aa5874

Just saying you accept Jesus as human therefore Peter was human makes absolutely no sense. You must provide some external corroborative source for the existence of Peter.

It is no longer acceptable to believe that whatever the Bible says is true when the VERACITY of the Bible is contested.

Even in the Bible, it is not really explained how Peter could have become the leader of a cult.

Peter LIED mutliple times about his association with Jesus. He claimed he did not know the man, not once but three times.

And Jesus, based on the NT, said anyone who denied him on earth, him would he deny in heaven.

Mt 10:33 - Peter no longer makes sense, even in the Bible. He has no credibility and he can't even try to go to heaven.

Peter appears to be a fiction character unless some external source can be found.