stephan huller

Yeah right. We're have a serious discussion about what? That Peter and Paul actually met and did all the things that a disputed text like the Acts of the Apostles claimed that they did? Really?

Okay let's start from the beginning. The meeting of Peter and Paul in Antioch is supposed to have happened, right? Do we all agree with this premise?

Here's my take. I'll put in the form of a question. If Peter and Paul at Antioch is a historical event, why are Peter and Paul the symbols of the Roman Church? In other words, Acts says they became a couple at Antioch. But the Roman Church somehow transferred this 'couple' and appropriated the symbolism.

To me that says right off the bat the symbol is the only thing real. You couldn't move Plymouth Rock to Louisiana. It was a real place. It was a real meeting/landing.

The symbol of Peter and Paul is older than the narrative in Acts and certainly was a gnostic symbol of Christianity which IMO originally transcended the significance of the Cross.

Here is symbol of the 'coupling' of Peter and Paul at Rome (or its more technical terminology = concordia apostolorum)





The question again is how could these things be transferred from Antioch to Rome if there was an actual historical meeting at Antioch? The answer is that the Roman symbol of their coupling is older than the meeting at Antioch (or at least certainly independent of it). There was a Roman coupling, pair (= συζυγία) which I think antedates the Antioch narrative. Maybe the author developed the story from the Roman symbolism. Notice that no mention of their meeting at Rome is mentioned.

I think the Marcionites accepted the συζυγία. Certainly the Valentinians.

Here's my argument for the Roman συζυγία being older than Acts. Irenaeus grudgingly makes reference to the pair. He says it once and then argues for a single line that wasn't attached to either man (AH 3.2.2). I think there were two separate apostolic lines - one through Peter and another through Paul. Gaius of Rome was the Pauline bishop at the time Zephyrinus was the Petrine bishop.

But the important thing is that the συζυγία at Rome predates Irenaeus and Irenaeus probably brought Acts to Rome. Notice the two cities that are unmentioned or at least ignored in Acts - Rome, Alexandria. Coincidence that Peter and Mark (= Paul) are associated with each of these cities?

stephan huller

Of course no one will respond to these posts. What's the point of posting things that are beyond the intellectual capabilities of people. All we do is just argue about whether or not the story in Acts is 'true.' Why not think outside the box? So I'd rather just continue the quest for facial hair. At least I have fellows in that pursuit.

angelo

:thumbs: