aa5874

In ALL Five Canonized Gospels it is claimed that Peter, a disciple of the supposed Jesus, DENIED that he knew him at least twice on the night he was arrested after the disciple went into the COURT of the High Priest.

To a casual reader the Denial story may appear plausible but on proper scrutiny it has serious NEGATIVE implications for the veracity and historical accuracy of the Jesus story itself.

If we consider that the supposed disciples including Peter were KNOWN by the people of Judea if they actually existed and would have TRAVELED with Jesus in BROAD DAYLIGHT all AROUND Galillee and when Jesus was in Jerusalem then the DENIAL story becomes extremely problematic.

In ALL the Gospels, the disciples and JESUS were supposedly SEEN together.

How is it even likely that Peter could DENY ever knowing Jesus when THOUSANDS of people would have SEEN the disciples with Jesus based on the same Gospels???

The disciples were with Jesus in the Temple of the Jews in gMark.
The disciples were with Jesus when he FED THOUSANDS of people in gMark.
The disciples were with Jesus when he was QUESTIONED by the Pharisees and Scribes in gMark.

Peter was supposedly PRESENT when Jesus was ARRESTED in gMark.

Amazingly, Peter was LEFT unmolested by those who arrested Jesus even though Peter was IDENTIFIED by MULTIPLE persons as a follower of Jesus.

Mark 14 Peter was somewhere in the Court of Sanhedrin when he supposedly openly LIED about NOT knowing Jesus and was NOT arrested or held for questioning.

It would be expected that the persons who KNEW Peter was a follower of Jesus would have NOTIFIED the authorities to have Peter ARRESTED and TRIED.

The Petrine DENIAL story is NOT plausible and augments the theory that gMark is NOT an historical account.

tanya

yeah, ok, no argument here.

But, my question is whether or not the fact that this story, (of Peter's denial of being a follower of Jesus, and the absurd idea that authorities would not have rounded up ALL the followers of someone accused of having caused so much trouble, that he merited crucifixion,) is found in gMark, supports, or repudiates, (or neither) the hypothesis that Paul's epistles follow the gospel writers, or precede them?

How to reconcile Paul's claim to have persecuted the nascent church, with Peter's relaxed escape from the attention of the authorities? The Roman authorities had very little trouble rounding up the followers of Spartacus, about the same time frame. Those guys were lined up and crucified, one after the other, for many kilometers, along the roads leading into Rome.

Juststeve

Tanya:

Spartacus and his followers were captured after a military defeat. Spartacus was not arrested and his followers were not rounded up after an arrest. The analogy is rather weak.

As to why the followers of Jesus were not rounded up the possibilities abound. Perhaps they weren't important enough to the Romans or the Temple officials to bother. Perhaps they weren't known to the people who might want to round them up. Perhaps they ran and hid or denied that they were followers at all, like Peter allegedly did. Its only mysterious if you really want it to be mysterious.

Steve

aa5874

Please, enough of your imagination. Where do you get your stories from???

In the Jesus stories, THOUSANDS of people followed Jesus with his supposed disciples.

The Disciples were with Jesus when he FED NINE THOUSAND men with some bread and Fish.

Mark 6.44 Mark 8.8-9 In the JESUS stories it is UTTERLY erroneous that Jesus and the disciples were NOT well known.

The disciples went TWO by TWO preaching in Galillee.

Mark 6.7 People would have known the disciples of Jesus based on gMark if they did exist.

It is just ridiculous that PETER could have simply DENIED he knew Jesus in the place of the Court of the Sanhedrin when MANY persons IDENTIFIED him as a follower of Jesus.

PETER would have PUBLICLY LIED yet he was NEVER arrested when he was RIGHT inside the very place where Jesus was held and questioned.

The Petrine Denial story is hopelessly Implausible.

Duvduv

And with all those THOUSANDS of people one would think that the epistles or Acts would have SOMETHING to say about what "Paul" heard or saw around town during the ministry period of his Jesus in Judea, yet not a blessed word about it despite thousands of people knowing about him, but apparently "Paul" never heard about him until he started "persecuting" Christians shortly after the crucifixion.

How did Saul get to hate the Christians so much anyway and why??!!
There must have been something going on when the HJ was still alive, which would add greatness to the turnaround of Saul/Paul, and yet not a word in any of the stories INCLUDING the apologists. It's actually rather amazing that the apologists never thought up some story about it.

Huon

And that's why Jesus, not important to the Romans, was crucified, like the followers of Spartacus.

mountainman

I thought there were only 4 canonised gospels and over 20 gnostic gospels.

aa5874

This thread is NOT set up for IMAGINATION. I no longer accept imagination

People who rely on imagination typically do NOT need any evidence from antiquity.

We cannot Change the Story of Romulus and Remus or any of the Myth Fables of the Greeks and Romans.

This is the Petrine Denial problem--

Peter supposedly was in the VERY same place where Jesus was taken after his supposed arrest and Publicly LIED to those WHO RECOGNISED him as a follower of Jesus.


The Petrine Denial story is NOT credible.

rizdek

It's plausible that Peter was able to convince a maid and some rif raff standing around a fire that he didn't know Jesus. I could picture it. THEY weren't the authorities, they were just people standing there bantering. No reason at all to think they'd even care to tell the authorities...maybe they hated the authorities and were just picking at Peter.

But, that interpretation also lessens, significantly, the importance of his denial. Why would he "weep" over dispelling some banter to get some peasants and maids off his back, so to speak.

And as to your math on the feeding of the 5000 + 4000, remember, some or all of the 5000 may have been the 4000 that got fed. I mean if someone was going around handing out free fish and chips, why wouldn't they keep following him?

Duvduv

And of course according to the stories in the epistles and Acts the shadowy figure named Saul who was around there and about the same age NEVER heard of Jesus during the brief ministry of this Jesus figure despite the fact that the story says that thousands of people knew him and within 2 years of the crucifixion there were already "churches of God" all over the place in Judea (although interestingly enough no mention at all is made of Galilee).

Furthermore, one would think that "Paul" would have been more than anxious to visit the places where thousands of people saw his Jesus, and yet this is never mentioned in any epistle or in Acts. EVEN when visiting in Jerusalem itself, the newly converted Paul makes no mention of visiting Bethlehem, Golgotha, Gethsemane etc.

This can only indicate that the Saul/Paul stories emerged well before the gospel stories crystalized with their historical backdrop and nobody later even attempted interpolating a little bit into Acts or the epistles just to offer some consistency.