NOGO

Ok, then why did they not make their identity known through their writing?

Why are the gospels anonymous and in Greek?

Steven Avery

Putting aside all the complicated arguments about dependency and church history and integrity and historical references of the writings.. I simply see tons of "credible evidence" ..

While I view the NT historicity fully-credible and spiritually in-credible, while you view the NT as "not credible", despite it being the premier historic document of the period in Israel, and affirmed again and again on historical particulars (which you view as some sort of docu-drama, apparently).

When you or any mythicist makes a typical blanket statement as above from your own view against the NT, it only demonstrates the circularity of the mythicist argumentation attitude.

Honestly I have no idea what you are saying here. My point to Peter was very simple. He inaccurately made a claim about what Paul said in the NT. Apparently, Peter's reasoning was some complicated argumentation done from a mythicist or skeptic position that used the very issue of concern as a base of rather convoluted speculation. This is circularity... and an honest scholarship starts FIRST with what the letters actually SAY, not what you project and conjecture based on your complicated suppositions.

This particular type of logical error and projection in mythicist and skeptic argumentation is one of the major ongoing illogics and circularities in the discussions in this forum.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Amaleq13

It seems "self-evident" to me that Paul's preaching about the sacrifice sets more of a precedent than the bare "fact" of Jesus on the cross. In fact, I believe he explicitly gives a command for Christians to imitate the selflessness of Christ. It is equally clear that where and when this sacrifice took place (ie historicity) is entirely irrelevant to Paul's gospel and, more importantly, entirely irrelevant to his faith in the significance of that sacrifice.

It was not the events described in the Gospel stories that inspired Christians to become martyrs but the theological significance of those events that gave them the inspiration necessary to sacrifice their own lives.

What is really being denied here is the notion that anyone could have enough faith in a revealed understanding of Scripture and/or a divine appearance of a risen Savior to be willing to die for it. I think such a notion seriously misunderstands and, as a result, drastically underestimates the power faith can have over the thinking of a person.

Amaleq13

If that evidence does not require faith to be considered "credible", I encourage you to start a new thread setting it forth for all to see. I know of no credible evidence that the Gospel stories were circulating while Paul lived but I would be interested in seeing some.

I'm not sure where I lost you.

I'm saying that your reference to a "redundant explanation" not being expected in Paul is a misleading and inaccurate description of my position.

I'm saying that this degree of confirmation of the Gospel story is not necessary to constitute evidence that Paul knew of it.

I'm saying that the presence of any of the examples I described would constitute evidence that Paul knew the story about Simon's nickname told in the Gospels.

I'm also saying that, absent such evidence, there continues to be no basis for the assumption that Paul knew this story.

Peter Kirby

That's fine. If we really don't know, it can't create a problem for the mythicist hypothesis.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Steven Avery

How about the simplest, the internal evidence, where Paul references a verse from Luke as scripture ?

Personally, I have no idea what the "credible evidence" is that you offer in reverse, that Paul was not aware of the Gospel accounts, either as completed Gospels, or in an earlier form. (My view is the first, but the second would also account for the Peter == Kephas relationship).

Again, I dunno what you are arguing..

"It is misleading to suggest that only a "redundant explanation" would constitute support for the Gospel story"

It was never my issue that something was .. "support for the Gospel story". The Gospel story exists, and it explains the dual usage by Paul very well. The reference to a "redundant explanation" is simple logic, whether the Gospel story was circulating as "John" or whether there were earlier versions being circulated.

There is a lot of similarity here to what you are arguing and what I just saw in the discussion between Holding and Kirby on the empty tomb. It seems you are going into lots of conjectures about how you speculate Paul would have thought if certain, mostly liberal or skeptical, scholarly viewpoints about the text were fact.

As I view the Gospels, the story of the life of Jesus, as preceding the epistles to the churches, and have never seen any evidence of substance against that chronology, I really don't see any point in trying to wrap my mind around conjectures about the NT book relationships that I simply do not see as well-supported, germane, consistent or logical.

The original issue was very simple. Peter Kirby declared that Paul had a certain usage for Peter and Cephas, and yet what Peter declared did not match the text of the Pauline epistles. So his claim was on face simply incorrect. I pointed that out. And since then, afaik, nobody has even acknowledged caring about what the text actually says, a very curious methodology. A theory can be developed about what the text does not say, but to relate to what the text says is apparently inoperative in these realms.

Anyway, in that context I simply pointed out that the Gospels show that the usage of Simon Peter and Cephas for the same apostle was specifically decleared by Jesus (implication --> therefore it would have been widely known, therefore no reason for Paul to duplicate the discussion). And we see that the context of the references is, for the most part, quite clear about the identity, as well, eliminating the one real objection.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Vorkosigan

The precise way you have worded this makes me wonder if you don't suspect tampering with the text here.....

Vorkosigan

1 Tim 5:18 cites Luke 10:7. There are no cites in any of the authentic Paulines. Thus no internal evidence.

Vorkosigan

A fictional creation of Mark's of course. As Mary Ann Tolbert in Sowing the Gospel pointed out, the Parable of the Sower is the key to understanding how Mark works. There the "rocky ground" is represented in the text by the disciples, who hear the word, but fade when tribulation comes. Peter's nickname of "rock" is thus a play on words on the "rocky" ground, and much irony is generated when the character named "rock" collapses at the end in a blubbery of denial. For those who are interested, Tolbert's idea looks like this.

Parable of the Sower
................Interpretation
...........................Gospel of Mark

seed sown along the way, eaten by birds
................those in whom the word is immediately removed by Satan
...........................scribes, pharisees, Jewish leaders

seed sown in rocky ground, comes up quickly, but has no roots, withers in the sun
................those who accept the word immediately, endure for a time, but fall away when tribulation comes
...........................disciples, especially Peter, James, and John.

seed sown among thorns, thorns choke it and it produces no fruit
................others in who the word is choked by the cares of the world, desire for riches, and desire for other things
...........................Pilate, Herod, rich man of Mk 10:17-22

seed sown on good earth, brings forth grain in triple abundance
................those who hear the word, accept it, and bear fruit in triple abundance
...........................one healed (or saved) by their faith

In other words, Mark's tale of Peter/Simon is pre-eminently a literary construction from Paul's hand, which casts suspicion on any reference to Peter as "the rock" in the Pauline corpus. As Weeden pointed out, the story of Peter's denial is a fiction unknown to Paul. Against this, Mark may well have coined a story to explain the meaning of Peter's nickname, since he is apparently familiar with the writings of Paul.

Vorkosigan

Steven Avery

Again, the same fallacy.

In a sense the master fallacy of the skeptic and mythicist and infidel analysis of the New Testament, and virtually all the theories propagated herein.

You are assuming the conclusions of liberal scholarship as your starting point.

This goes nicely hand in hand with your insisting on the errant text.

Now, having pointed that out, I can try to end or limit my thread intrusion here, since I view it as simply another GIGO type of argumentation.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/