Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 12-06-2003, 07:39 AM

Quote:

The problem with figuring out who the HJ was is that all the evidence is derived from fictions. And nobody has any sound methodology for deriving truth from those fictions.

Vorkosigan said this in another thread here.

So we have lots of different images of Jesus and lots of different thoughts on the exact nature of Jesus ideology, mission etc. But what does this have to do with a detail like say Peter being a follower of Jesus?

As I told Dr. X, problems with figuring out "who the HJ was" does not preventing us from stating "the HJ had a follower named Peter".

As we all no doubt know (except for Toto who does not accept the genuine Pauline epistles and any others who agree with him), Peter's existence is well established by contemporary-primary source data (eyewitness testimony) from Paul plus a host of other first century sources, many of which connect him directly into the "alleged life of an alleged historical Jesus".

1) Do you agree that Peter Existed? Yes, no, why why not?

2) Do you agree that Jesus had a follower named Peter? Yes or no? Why or why not? If no how do you separate Peter from an historical Jesus?

If I have to list the traditions I will!

Vinnie

offa · 12-06-2003, 02:04 PM

Offa,
You children of GOD have a story to write. It will be your story and
nobody else's. Your story will please your ancestral lineage.
Peter has been glossed over and re-written. Peter is Herod the
Great's son by his wife Mariamne II. Josephus glossed over has two
sons by this Mariamne. What? Philip and another? Peter is Herodias'
first husband and he is the father of the daughter who obtained John
the Baptist's head. The head was a headdress, simply a cloth. A cap
that says Chattanooga.
These citizen's of Rome are Herod's children. Peter died long
before Nero. King Agrippa was his nephew. He (Agripa) was the dude who was
poisoned while wearing Jesus' vest.
You have a story to tell and a book to write. Do it*.

thanks, Offa

*Abraham was horny and hit on his step-daughter. Sarai said "Do it".
Lot screwed his daughters. Do it! Was Lot Abraham?

Vinnie · 12-06-2003, 02:09 PM

Toto · 12-06-2003, 02:38 PM

The Legend of Saint Peter by Arthur Drews

page 10 ff:

Quote:

The Peter of Acts and of the later literature is a legendary person: of this there can be no doubt. His portrait is so shot-through with mythical features that it is quite impossible now to isolate any "historical kernal" from the suviving reports. There was was an actual Peter who played an important role in the Jerusalem protochurch, that he fought on the side of Paul's opponents in the struggle against Gentile Christianity, that he was involved in multifarious intrigues against it, and that his behavior was not beyond reproach would seem to be all that we can safely conclude from the book of Acts with regard to the life of Peter. This is, however, nothing more than what we already have concluded from Paul's Epistle to the Galatians.

. . .

. . . But it is apparent that all the passages in the gospels that deal with Peter are mythical, and there remains for an "historical kernel" at most the notion that Simon Peter, a disciple of the Lord, was an ardent but unreliable character. The evangelist knew so little that he could say about the acts of Peter and other details that he had to invent all the relevant passages. . . .

Drews is an early mythicist, so calling Peter a disciple of the Lord does not imply here that he believes Peter was a disciple of a historical human named Jesus.

Quote:

1) Do you agree that Peter Existed? Yes, no, why why not?

2) Do you agree that Jesus had a follower named Peter? Yes or no? Why or why not? If no how do you separate Peter from an historical Jesus?

Some guy named Peter or Cephas probably existed. But we don't know if he was the follower of a human Jesus or a follower of a mystical risen Christ, just as we can't really know for sure if James was the biological brother of Jesus or the mystical Brother of the Lord.

If he had known the human Jesus, it is hard to explain why he is so unreliable on issues of following the law. If he knew Jesus and Jesus said follow the Jewish law, why did Peter go back and forth (according to Paul) on questions such as table fellowship? Why did Paul refer to him with such contempt?

Vorkosigan · 12-06-2003, 03:09 PM

I agree with Toto. However, whatever my position on Peter is, it does not negate the argument I have been making. Nor does believing the Gospels are fictions imply that Jesus did not exist. It simply means that we have no good evidence as to who or what he was.

The approach favored in some quarters, working on multiple attestation through stratification of sources, cannot work because it contains no method for straining out the historical content. You could perform the same act for any number of fictional works; in the Darkover series, for example, a number of books were published when Marion Zimmer Bradley was quite young, and then republished in expanded versions later. Further, much fan fiction has been published with her as the editor, offering more details, and contradictory ones as the main storyline develops in different directions. MZB herself contradicts herself in many details major and minor. Thus, the stories exist in multiple versions, from multiple hands. It would be easy to build a very complex structure of multiple attestation to give you the earliest version, going back to the original notes she constructed when she was in her early teens in the 1950s. However, the earliest version would still be fiction.

That was Crossan's point as well, when he discussed methodology in The Birth of Christianity. You cannot operate with the assumption that when you have the earliest version, you have the HJ. All you have is the earliest version. Period.

What you need is a method for analyzing content to determine history. And you don't have that anywhere.

Vorkosigan

rlogan · 12-06-2003, 05:05 PM

Vork's on the right page here. Along with Toto.

I started a thread on Paul before, and resolve that we have the same question with all of the primary agents, including Peter. No solid evidence. One big circular mess. Oh what a tangled web we weave once we begin to deceive...

Forged epistles of Peter don't add credibility to the Peter "cause".

Peter was supposedly executed by Nero and buried at the vatican. And Linus, the mythical second pope, is buried bext to him. At one point the vatican was claiming they'd found his bones but they've backed off on that. So where is he?

All the way up through Clement is B.S., and including Clement too. We have fabricated pseudo-Clementine material and nothing solid is really known about him. I know Vinnie doesn't like me to keep pounding this home, but there is without question a tradition of deception, interpolation, pagan marketing and inconsistency in the source material.

There has to have been a Peter that was "follower" of Christ. It was a common name. The Christ eschatology preceeded Jesus. There must have been a James. A John. A Jed, Jethro, Ellie-mae, and Mr. Drysdale. There would have been a Peter following a Jesus and a Jesus following a Peter.

Getting to the first strata is still important in its own right whether it is the "truth" or not.

I've thought more about this Martyr complex now and understand the use to which it is put. When Christian apologists have a difficult time with positive evidence, they trot out the martyrs. "They would not have died for something they did not believe in". The inention of martyrs is an important marketing device.

Vorkosigan · 12-06-2003, 06:28 PM

I like Price's understanding of the situation as one of competing factions in a post-Jesus Caliphate. In that context an invented HJ makes sense as a powerful device that validated one of the competing positions, the proto-orthodox position.

Situations where people engage in political struggle through competing visions are actually quite common, from the complexities of Taiping politics where everyone was channeling heaven, to one of my friends' clients here in Taiwan, who took to her bed to channel Mom when Dad remarried a young Vietnamese bride. For some reason Mom disproved of the marriage and subsequent redistribution of wealth away from the old family and toward the new bride. Even today a number of prominent figures, from the Pope to Oral Roberts, claim direct contact with heaven and implicitly or explicitly compete with each other. Moreover, as anyone who has studied Marian apparitions knows, visions spread because they bring status, wealth, and power to those who claim to have them. At Lourdes there was a whole slew of competing visions. The political power of such visions is one reason the Church is reluctant to formally acknowledge miraculous visions of the IPU in her Virgin avatar because She might want to make changes in the institution.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13 · 12-06-2003, 07:08 PM

From Paul, I get the impression that Cephas/Peter was a Jewish Christian who kept to the Laws while hanging around the Jews but wasn't afraid to eat with Gentiles if nobody was looking.

What I'm not clear on, however, is why a Jewish Christian has a Greek name.

Thanks in advance for any clarity that can be brought to this matter for me.

spin · 12-06-2003, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
1) Do you agree that Peter Existed? Yes, no, why why not?

2) Do you agree that Jesus had a follower named Peter? Yes or no? Why or why not? If no how do you separate Peter from an historical Jesus?

What methodology acceptible to use all can we employ to answer these questions?

A commonly acceptible methodology is a necessity for us all to go ahead with this type conversation. Looking at the questions Vinnie asks, which are based almost exclusively on a reading of nt material provides us with no external reality checks, I can see no way of answering them.

To some extent we all adhere to logic, but our understanding of the material that makes up our premises for that logic is different. Our job should now be to decide what premises we all can use. If we can't, we can't really communicate.

spin

spin · 12-06-2003, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amaleq13
From Paul, I get the impression that Cephas/Peter was a Jewish Christian who kept to the Laws while hanging around the Jews but wasn't afraid to eat with Gentiles if nobody was looking.

What I'm not clear on, however, is why a Jewish Christian has a Greek name.

Umm, the text tells us that Peter's real name is Simon (which is a Greek form of the Hebrew name $ime`on). His nickname is "Rock", ie Cephas in Hebrew and Petros in Greek.

What interests me is that the Epistle of the Apostles lists Peter and Cephas as two separate people. Paul almost exclusively uses Cephas, yet, I argued long ago here, the only passage that Paul uses "Peter", Gal 2:11-14 has the appearance of an interpolation.

spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-06-2003, 02:04 PM	#2
offa Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Monroeville, Ohio, USA Posts: 440	Offa, You children of GOD have a story to write. It will be your story and nobody else's. Your story will please your ancestral lineage. Peter has been glossed over and re-written. Peter is Herod the Great's son by his wife Mariamne II. Josephus glossed over has two sons by this Mariamne. What? Philip and another? Peter is Herodias' first husband and he is the father of the daughter who obtained John the Baptist's head. The head was a headdress, simply a cloth. A cap that says Chattanooga. These citizen's of Rome are Herod's children. Peter died long before Nero. King Agrippa was his nephew. He (Agripa) was the dude who was poisoned while wearing Jesus' vest. You have a story to tell and a book to write. Do it. thanks, Offa Abraham was horny and hit on his step-daughter. Sarai said "Do it". Lot screwed his daughters. Do it! Was Lot Abraham?

12-06-2003, 02:09 PM	#3
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523

12-06-2003, 03:09 PM	#5
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I agree with Toto. However, whatever my position on Peter is, it does not negate the argument I have been making. Nor does believing the Gospels are fictions imply that Jesus did not exist. It simply means that we have no good evidence as to who or what he was. The approach favored in some quarters, working on multiple attestation through stratification of sources, cannot work because it contains no method for straining out the historical content. You could perform the same act for any number of fictional works; in the Darkover series, for example, a number of books were published when Marion Zimmer Bradley was quite young, and then republished in expanded versions later. Further, much fan fiction has been published with her as the editor, offering more details, and contradictory ones as the main storyline develops in different directions. MZB herself contradicts herself in many details major and minor. Thus, the stories exist in multiple versions, from multiple hands. It would be easy to build a very complex structure of multiple attestation to give you the earliest version, going back to the original notes she constructed when she was in her early teens in the 1950s. However, the earliest version would still be fiction. That was Crossan's point as well, when he discussed methodology in The Birth of Christianity. You cannot operate with the assumption that when you have the earliest version, you have the HJ. All you have is the earliest version. Period. What you need is a method for analyzing content to determine history. And you don't have that anywhere. Vorkosigan

12-06-2003, 05:05 PM	#6
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	Vork's on the right page here. Along with Toto. I started a thread on Paul before, and resolve that we have the same question with all of the primary agents, including Peter. No solid evidence. One big circular mess. Oh what a tangled web we weave once we begin to deceive... Forged epistles of Peter don't add credibility to the Peter "cause". Peter was supposedly executed by Nero and buried at the vatican. And Linus, the mythical second pope, is buried bext to him. At one point the vatican was claiming they'd found his bones but they've backed off on that. So where is he? All the way up through Clement is B.S., and including Clement too. We have fabricated pseudo-Clementine material and nothing solid is really known about him. I know Vinnie doesn't like me to keep pounding this home, but there is without question a tradition of deception, interpolation, pagan marketing and inconsistency in the source material. There has to have been a Peter that was "follower" of Christ. It was a common name. The Christ eschatology preceeded Jesus. There must have been a James. A John. A Jed, Jethro, Ellie-mae, and Mr. Drysdale. There would have been a Peter following a Jesus and a Jesus following a Peter. Getting to the first strata is still important in its own right whether it is the "truth" or not. I've thought more about this Martyr complex now and understand the use to which it is put. When Christian apologists have a difficult time with positive evidence, they trot out the martyrs. "They would not have died for something they did not believe in". The inention of martyrs is an important marketing device.

12-06-2003, 06:28 PM	#7
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I like Price's understanding of the situation as one of competing factions in a post-Jesus Caliphate. In that context an invented HJ makes sense as a powerful device that validated one of the competing positions, the proto-orthodox position. Situations where people engage in political struggle through competing visions are actually quite common, from the complexities of Taiping politics where everyone was channeling heaven, to one of my friends' clients here in Taiwan, who took to her bed to channel Mom when Dad remarried a young Vietnamese bride. For some reason Mom disproved of the marriage and subsequent redistribution of wealth away from the old family and toward the new bride. Even today a number of prominent figures, from the Pope to Oral Roberts, claim direct contact with heaven and implicitly or explicitly compete with each other. Moreover, as anyone who has studied Marian apparitions knows, visions spread because they bring status, wealth, and power to those who claim to have them. At Lourdes there was a whole slew of competing visions. The political power of such visions is one reason the Church is reluctant to formally acknowledge miraculous visions of the IPU in her Virgin avatar because She might want to make changes in the institution. Vorkosigan

12-06-2003, 07:08 PM	#8
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	From Paul, I get the impression that Cephas/Peter was a Jewish Christian who kept to the Laws while hanging around the Jews but wasn't afraid to eat with Gentiles if nobody was looking. What I'm not clear on, however, is why a Jewish Christian has a Greek name. Thanks in advance for any clarity that can be brought to this matter for me.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.