Freethought & Rationalism Archive

brian231 · 12-22-2006, 05:22 PM

I just got done with taking a bible class at my local community college and after studying Paul's letters(the 7 he wrote) very closely I was wondering if Peter actually knew Jesus while he was alive or if this was written into the story later on. In Paul's letters it's obvious that Peter and Paul are rivals and this just doesn't add up for me or make any sense. The question I keep asking myself is if Peter was actually an original follower of Jesus then why on earth is Paul arguing with him about anything. Paul's letters really don't provide much to go on but he never treats Peter with any sort of respect for having supposedly known and follwed Jesus. The few times that Paul mentions Peter he speaks of him as if he is someone seperate from "the twelve" and never actually says that Peter had known Jesus or was a follower of his. It's only in the gospels and the book of acts that Peter is said to have been a follower of Jesus.

I was surrounded by a bunch of crazy fundamentalists so I wasn't comfortable bringing this question up in class so hopefully someone here can answer my question.

Toto · 12-22-2006, 05:25 PM

That is an interesting question, but any answer has to be speculative.

Paul generally refers to "Cephas" not "Peter" and there was some discussion here recently as to whether those two were actually the same.

John Kesler · 12-22-2006, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian231

The question I keep asking myself is if Peter was actually an original follower of Jesus then why on earth is Paul arguing with him about anything.

Jesus never said that his followers were perfect, especially not Peter--the one who denied Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian231

The few times that Paul mentions Peter he speaks of him as if he is someone seperate from "the twelve" and never actually says that Peter had known Jesus or was a follower of his.

What about Galatians, which calls Peter/Cephas an apostle?

Quote:

Galatians 1:15-18 (NRSV)
15 But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus. 18 Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; 19 but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord's brother.

Galatians 2:8 (NRSV)
8(for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles),

If you have in mind 1 Corinthians 15:5, which speaks of Jesus' appearance to "Cephas, then to the twelve," I think this simply means that Cephas/Peter saw Jesus before the rest of the apostles, not that Peter wasn't also an apostle. (See Luke 14:34 and Mark 16:7.)

Amaleq13 · 12-22-2006, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

What about Galatians, which calls Peter/Cephas an apostle?

Since Paul calls himself an apostle, the term cannot be assumed to imply having known or followed a living Jesus.

spin · 12-22-2006, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Since Paul calls himself an apostle, the term cannot be assumed to imply having known or followed a living Jesus.

I think we're having a little fun with terminology. First look at the appearances again (in order),

Cephas,
the twelve,
500 brothers,
James,
all the apostles, and
Paul.

The twelve, where that included Peter or not, are not called apostles. In the gospels those twelve were referred to as disciples. An apostle is someone who is sent, such as a messenger.

This list is beguiling. First it says "the twelve", not "the eleven". Cephas appears to be separate from this twelve. Jesus did a party appearance to 500 brothers, which recalls the brothers of the lord, and one wonders why the appearances to James and all the apostles never made it into the gospel accounts. Paul got special treatment after Jesus had risen and gone to the kingdom of heaven.

spin

neilgodfrey · 12-23-2006, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian231

I just got done with taking a bible class at my local community college and after studying Paul's letters(the 7 he wrote) very closely I was wondering if Peter actually knew Jesus while he was alive or if this was written into the story later on. In Paul's letters it's obvious that Peter and Paul are rivals and this just doesn't add up for me or make any sense. The question I keep asking myself is if Peter was actually an original follower of Jesus then why on earth is Paul arguing with him about anything. Paul's letters really don't provide much to go on but he never treats Peter with any sort of respect for having supposedly known and follwed Jesus. The few times that Paul mentions Peter he speaks of him as if he is someone seperate from "the twelve" and never actually says that Peter had known Jesus or was a follower of his. It's only in the gospels and the book of acts that Peter is said to have been a follower of Jesus.

Paul is not alone the doubts he places on Peter's credentials. The Gospel of Mark, generally acknowledged as the earliest, is interpreted by some scholars as an attack on Peter and the Twelve. Tolbert even argues in effect that Peter in this first gospel is a literary parabolic character there, whose name and behaviour illustrates the seed falling in stony ground. Later evangelists attempted to re-write the story to give Peter a more honourable role but without introducing a huge amount of new evidence, except for stories of encounters with the resurrected Jesus.

Interestingly the 1st Apocalypse of James later depicts James also rebuking "the Twelve" and the question arises for some scholars whether this is an indication that there were Christians who saw the Twelve as earthly types of the wicked archons in Jerusalem who were responsible for the demise of Jesus -- not a huge step from what some read in the Gospel of Mark, where Jesus calls Peter "Satan".

One might ask if the various apostles were eponymous figures representing rival branches of early Christianity. Those who represented opposing schools were described variously as failing to understand Jesus and knowing only "Jesus in the flesh", of knowing only the "spirit" Jesus and never knowing him "in the flesh", of relying on spurious visions, of knowing both the pre-and post-resurrected Jesus, and so on.

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

John Kesler · 12-23-2006, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Since Paul calls himself an apostle, the term cannot be assumed to imply having known or followed a living Jesus.

That Paul called himself an apostle doesn't change the fact that Peter, who knew Jesus, was one of the apostles:

Quote:

Luke 6:13-14 (NRSV)
13 And when day came, he [Jesus] called his disciples and chose twelve of them, whom he also named apostles: 14 Simon, whom he named Peter...

The Evil One · 12-23-2006, 03:59 AM

Is there actually any evidence for a notion equivalent to that of the Apostles (capital A)at this point? I would have thought not. My impresion was that it was just a word meaning "missionary" or the equivalent.

John Kesler · 12-23-2006, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Evil One

Is there actually any evidence for a notion equivalent to that of the Apostles (capital A)at this point? I would have thought not. My impresion was that it was just a word meaning "missionary" or the equivalent.

Read Acts 1:13 ff, which discusses the choosing of Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot:

Quote:

13 When they had entered the city, they went to the room upstairs where they were staying, Peter, and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 All these were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as his brothers. 15 In those days Peter stood up among the believersd (together the crowd numbered about one hundred twenty persons) and said, 16 "Friends, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit through David foretold concerning Judas, who became a guide for those who arrested Jesus-- 17 for he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry." 18 (Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19 This became known to all the residents of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) 20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'Let his homestead become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and 'Let another take his position of overseer.' 21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us--one of these must become a witness with us to his resurrection." 23 So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed and said, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place." 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

The Evil One · 12-23-2006, 05:26 AM

Key phrase: "at this point". Acts is at the very least 4 or 5 decades later than Paul's epistles IIUC.

12-22-2006, 05:22 PM	#1
brian231 New Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Michigan Posts: 2	Did Peter actually know Jesus? I just got done with taking a bible class at my local community college and after studying Paul's letters(the 7 he wrote) very closely I was wondering if Peter actually knew Jesus while he was alive or if this was written into the story later on. In Paul's letters it's obvious that Peter and Paul are rivals and this just doesn't add up for me or make any sense. The question I keep asking myself is if Peter was actually an original follower of Jesus then why on earth is Paul arguing with him about anything. Paul's letters really don't provide much to go on but he never treats Peter with any sort of respect for having supposedly known and follwed Jesus. The few times that Paul mentions Peter he speaks of him as if he is someone seperate from "the twelve" and never actually says that Peter had known Jesus or was a follower of his. It's only in the gospels and the book of acts that Peter is said to have been a follower of Jesus. I was surrounded by a bunch of crazy fundamentalists so I wasn't comfortable bringing this question up in class so hopefully someone here can answer my question.

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

12-22-2006, 05:25 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	That is an interesting question, but any answer has to be speculative. Paul generally refers to "Cephas" not "Peter" and there was some discussion here recently as to whether those two were actually the same.

12-23-2006, 03:59 AM	#8
The Evil One Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: England Posts: 2,561	Is there actually any evidence for a notion equivalent to that of the Apostles (capital A)at this point? I would have thought not. My impresion was that it was just a word meaning "missionary" or the equivalent.

12-23-2006, 05:26 AM	#10
The Evil One Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: England Posts: 2,561	Key phrase: "at this point". Acts is at the very least 4 or 5 decades later than Paul's epistles IIUC.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.