jakejonesiv

The only time Peter is mentioned in the Pauline epistles is in the interpolation of Gal. 2:7-8.

Jake Jones IV

TedM

Rlogan, I am not really that upset, though I do get somewhat frustrated at your statements. Consider my responses to be more a result of feeling 'spirited' or 'feisty'!
You assume incorrectly. I never said the canonical gospels are accurate. What I don't think you are justified in doing is claiming that they are fictional creations simply because they don't contain what you would expect. That's an argument out of silence, by the way, since you didn't seem to recognize that point.

ALL of it? That is an arrogant position. A more reasonable one would be agnostic. That's why discussion with you is nearly impossible. You have a closed mind.

Rlogan, this illustrates that you have no argument here because you aren't approaching this logically. You are saying that because I can't demonstrate to your satisfaction that Paul DIDN'T have an encounter with Jesus in some 'non-remote' time period that I therefore must explain to your satisfaction why the gospels don't include the encounter Paul talks about. That's simply ridiculous. Further you seem to be implying that because Paul was the first writer of Christian material that his encounter had Jesus been historical, must have been within some arbitrary time period you have in your mind. Why make such assumptions. It makes no sense at all.



Basically I'm saying that you consider gospel events to be entirely mythical because you have a criteria that certain kinds of anchors be present within them that you claim are not. I'm saying that there are billions of non-fictional writings about past events that don't have such anchors. Therefore your belief that such anchors illustrate fiction is logically flawed.


Oh, and like the association with John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate, the amazing miracles said to have been witnessed by many people, including the respected religious authorities, the arrest and 'trial' by and infront of such authorities including the HIGH PRIEST!, the crucifixion in Jerusalem during Passover, the huge crowds from far away places coming to see Jesus' miracles, the slaughter of the innocents, the requirement to return to one's hometown for the census, and so much more would not have been easily falsified if they didn't really happen? Come on. You can't have it both ways, rloghan. If those were false historical representations, certainly the writers didn't have any concern about writing falsifiable information, and so they wouldn't be averse to including the kinds of anchors you want to see either, right?


The one you make in response to the OP.


Those two positions aren't exclusive. That's basic logic. It's a wonder to me that you are incapable of seeing this.



Oh, now the anchor requirement gets more detailed. I see this as a clear reference to not just being 'important' but being 'important in the founding of the Church'. That would therefore be a reference to 'something Peter did'. It's pretty obvious.

Oh my gosh. I gave you the specific verses. Can't you see that they reference Peter's martyrdom and the long life of John? It's obvious. That's certainly an anchor. Of course, it must not be the detail you prefer. I guess you would like Jesus to have said "Peter, you will be die like myself, yet upside down, and in the city of Rome. And John, congratulations! You will recieve a vision about my retun in 60 years on the island of Patmos. Enjoy your long life...". What do you want here, rlogan? Why aren't these verses acceptable anchors to you?


If you require that to call it a 'historical document', fine. IF you require that in order to say 'it isn't mythical', that's not logical.


How do you explain Luke-Acts? Acts was written by the same author of Luke at least in part, yet GLuke says nothing of Paul.


No. I was insisting that there did not NEED to be mention of anything whatever after the ascension, in order to serve a particular purpose--ie discuss sayings and doings of the man Jesus. It is you who seems to think they do need to, and I congratulate you for finding such an example.


I must be a masochist to keep trying. I keep thinking something will get through here...

ted

TedM

1. Cephas was Peter. The names mean the same thing. So, Peter was one of the pillars. Paul visited him for fifteen days after converting (1:18). That's quite a long time.

2. Paul acknowledges that God worked in Peter in 2:7-8..and if you consider that to be an interpolatinos, he still acknowledges the theological authority of the pillars in 2:2 when he says he laid his gospel before them for approval lest he had been 'running in vain'.

3. One conflict was that of requiring Gentiles to be circumcised. This is the main conflict found throughout Galations. The pillars, after much discussion, agreed with Paul and gave him approval to continue with this message. Another had to do with Jews eating with Gentiles. Peter and Paul agreed in mixing, as Peter ate with them (2:12), but then chickened out when other Jews came. Paul pointed out Peter's hypocrisy to him.


SO, Peter/Cephas and Paul actually thought much the same (note too that Cephas had followers among the Corinthians (1:12). It seems likely to me that Peter did indeed preach among Gentiles at times, though his base was in Jerusalem.

ted

dog-on

Re: Galatians

With Detering, I believe that this epistle could have been originally authored by Marcion (or someone in his circle). Interpolations aside, portions of the work are almost auto-biographical regarding Marcion's own experience with the orthodoxy in Rome (at least in so far as the story has been recounted by his adversaries...).

Clivedurdle

Is it possible Marcion (not Eusebius) gave us the foundations of xianity building on pre existing messianic ideas?

As we had an "allied view of history" have we been misled by a "catholic view of history"?

TedM

Since Marcion compiled the first canon, this seems to me to be a very valid question..What IS the evidence that he was considered to be a heretic during the time in which he compiled the canon? What is the evidence that he had actually tampered with documents to produce a different version of Christianity? What is the evidence that the Catholics weren't really the tamperers??

jakejonesiv

Hi spamandham,

If you want a new perspective, read Marcion's verion of the epistle to the Galatians.

Here is Detering's reconstruction. It includes the later catholic interpolations in red.

If you are interested in a line by line detail of the reconstruction, see The Original Version of the Epistle to the Galatians. Explanations.

Translations by Frans-Joris Fabri.

Jake Jones IV

Amaleq13

Where is there support for this in Paul's letters?

jakejonesiv

Yes. Galatians was unknown before Marcion "found" it. (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.3.2). Pseudononymous or forged material is often preceded by an alleged discovery.

The story of Paul's alleged encounters with the pillars are arguably modeled on the historical Marcion's arrival in Rome. Marcion presents himself to the "pillars" of his time, the leaders of the church for approval. Marcion attempts to buy himself into the good graces of the Roman church with a gift of 200,000 sesterces (Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 30). This is a goodly sum, equivalent to several million dollars in today's currency.

Paul is alleged to do the same, bring money in the form of a collection from the Galatians to the church at Jerusalem (Gal 2:10, cf 1 Cor. 16:1). Indeed, even as Simon Magus is said to attempt to buy in with St. Peter (Acts 8:18). And like Marcion, Simon's money is returned with his rejection.

Jake Jones IV

Solo

'Kepha' is the Aramaic rendition of 'Petros'. The mention of 'Petros' in Gal 2:7-8 is probably of later provenance.

Jiri