Clivedurdle

From above link

hatsoff

From a secular perspective, they were both wrong. Jesus obviously had no intention of founding a major religion. For all practical purposes, it was Peter who founded Christianity, and Paul who shaped the mainstream. Marcion is considered a heretic because he disagreed with that mainstream.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Marcion was responsible for the first known collection of authoritative Christian literature, and edited much of it to suit his own theology. He did not, however, write anything now in the New Testament.

neilgodfrey

While seeing many rosey overlaps between Paul and Mark I still feel a few thorns that keep me from embracing the links too easily. I'd appreciate your thoughts on one: Mark's Jesus is essentially an absent Jesus -- he hides from people once he does his thing (1:38, 13:21, 16:6) -- and the gospel tells followers to ignore those who say they can be with him in the here and now (Kelber); Paul's Jesus is seems rather to be one of those Mark warns against, one who is "here there and everywhere", "in him", "in believers".

While I think I can rationalize this difference I am less sure I can find direct textual support for any of my proposed rationalizations.

Am I making a false dichotomy between Mark's Jesus and Paul's? If so, on what grounds exactly? Is this a pointless discussion given we have to accept that the texts we are dealing with are at the very least late second century modifications of whatever they originally said?

bajan

Paul not only claims to have seen his Lord Jesus but says he received the gospel (authority?) from him. It was not a vision. He warns the Colossians against 'dwelling on visions' in 2:18.

Acts 1:3, being long after Paul's death, IMHO was written to limit anybody's claim to apostolic authority other than through the 11 from which Peter was the one singled out as the one who the sheep should follow. Was somebody afraid of Paul's churches becoming too influential?

spamandham

I'm not aware of any credible evidence that Peter founded Christianity (or for that matter, that he even actually existed). Are there references to Peter in the undisputedly authentic Pauline letters?

rlogan

You aren't being very coherent, and are obviously upset. On the one hand you wish to live and die apologizing for the canonical gospels and on the other hand say "who cares".

I don't agree with any of the mythical canon. It's all hogwash. But you have these extrapordinarily apologetic constructs for why not one single person in the gospel narratives has some historical anchor placing them in continuity with events that happened after.

Cite for me where Paul places his encounter with Jesus in relation to the alleged crucifiction.

You can't. And so you make it up to suit your fancy. Paul is by all accounts the first writer of biblical material - so you are going to have a hard time arguing that this is some encounter remote in time.



Of course my argument is that they are not history. But you sure think they are.


This is does not even rise to argumentum ad populum since we are not discussing whether they are understandable. or coherent in that sense. Obviously you do not wish to stick to the topic.



Rephrase this in the positive voice. There's a double negative in a run-on sentence and I am not sure what the heck you are trying to say.

That is exceedingly elementary.

Because anything they state which allegedly anchors events and people to a bona-fide historical person living in the alleged time frame they were written is too easily falsified.

If these were written, for argument's sake, in 80 CE and a reference in 80 CE is made to existing people - then those references must be factual or the lie is immediately exposed.

That is why there are no such references.


What argument from silence?

No, you can't simultansously ridicule the idea of historical anchors and also insist they are there. Talk about emotion driving your responses!


Emotion? Har! That's pretty funny.

You have yet to demonstrate anything here other than the vague idea Peter might be "important" - not any actual historical reference to something peter did.


No problem. You don't have anything so you just want to be coy and pretend there is something there which isn't.

If there was wording in there doing specifically the kind of historical anchoring we are discussing you would have quoted it.

You have yet to give a single one. You just wave your hands and say "it's in there".

Quote it.


See the hypocrisy. Oh, how important it is to "prove" a historical lineage by fabricating a line that cannot be checked since it is too ancient (in 2nd century already too ancient)

Oh - but we need to ridicule any bona-fide demonstration of historicity by linking forward to people that actually exist.

heh.

Looks like you're coming unglued there, buddy.

I just want even one or two generations forward. That's all. Such a trifle.


I've been pretty careful to stick with the OP - originally that the person of Paul is not mentioned. I expanded that to include the complete lack of historical continuity through PEOPLE that did things of any consequence.

You were insisting that there can be no mention of anything whatever after the ascension. So I disproved that by demonstrating they do. The destruction of the temple is supposedly prophesized.

So why none about PEOPLE? Because those are so easily falsified. And yet, history is basically what PEOPLE do.


There are lots of names mentioned. Not just three. The requirement is not that there are names of people in the New Testament. Are you really that desperate to avoid the discussion?

Yes, Ted - there are names of people. But there are no demonstrations of historical anchors providing continuity with the time frame the gospels are supposedly written.

In part you are avoiding that very problem - when they are written. So you get to hold your cards there while arguing mutually exclusive positions in the meantime.

Well, my point has been made nevertheless and I do see there is no hope for any kind of genuine discussion.

So with kind regards, g'bye.

hatsoff

I think you may be employing a too-harsh standard of evidence, but luckily for you there are such references: In his Epistle to the Galatians (c. 54 AD) Paul talks at length about Peter.

hatsoff

No kidding.

jakejonesiv

In a recent publication, Joseph B. Tyson argues that Luke/Acts were second century works written to refute Marcion.

I have not completed reading the book yet, but here are a couple of points gleened so far.

The author of Acts knew of, but suppressed, knowledge of the Pauline Epistles. Indeed, the author was set to undermine the epistles.

For example, Tyson notes that the author of Acts 15 knew very well the epistle to the Galatians, but turned it on its head. The words of Paul are placed in the mouth of Peter in the speech of 15:7-11. But it is not just Paul who is mouthed, it is the Deutero Paul of Ephesians. (e.g. saved instead of justified v. 11). This implies that the author of Luke/Acts had knowledge of the Pauline writings as a collection; a collection already gone through the filter of the Deutero-Pauline school.

It is argued that Marcion had a gospel that predates canonical Luke, but I have not reached that part yet.

This struggle is placed in the second century, as a reaction to Marcion's postition that Paul was the exclusive apostle. Dr. Tyson doesn't go so far as to embrace the views of the Tübingen school, but this is a significant improvement on traditional datings.

Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle, by Joseph B. Tyson. University of South Carolina Press (October 15, 2006)
ISBN: 1570036500 (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Jake Jones IV

spamandham

I went back and reread the entirety of Galatians, and you are correct that Paul talks about Peter, but only briefly, and certainly not in a flattering way. Paul excluded Peter from the list of those he considered pillars of the church, so certainly Paul provides no evidence that Peter founded Christianity.

My reading of Galatians is that Cephas, John, and James are the leaders of the Jerusalem church. There was a conflict between Paul's vision of Christianity and Peter's, and so the pillars told Paul to quit trying to spread his version to Jews. Paul begrudgingly accepted this, and went back and wrote Galatians to try "go around" the 3 pillars.