Steven Avery

> Praxeas
> Yes, in 1 Corinthians and in Galatians 2:9
> ... Paul also uses 'Peter' in Galatians.
> Galatians 1:18
> Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with
> him fifteen days. (Also 2:7 - 2:8 - 2:11 - 2:14 )
Thanks. Apparently your original claim "Kephas is the name used in the letters of Paul."
was based on your acceptance of the views of this article. Since Barnikol largely bases his claims on his own way of dealing with the usages of Cepha and Peter in Galatians and Corinthians, the original claim appears circular ...

Your basis for saying
"Kephas is the name used in the letters of Paul."
is if you go with the theory in an article that considers it a major anomaly, needing outside authorship, against the much simpler Occam view that Paul would use Cephas and Peter (the prima facie Epistle reading).

And I don't see any problem with that at all, ergo I will take the time to show that the epistles themselves do not agree with..
"Kephas is the name used in the letters of Paul."

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Steven Avery

However, I do not view the Gospel stories as later.. either in their date of writing, or in the date of the events that they record. The Gospels do offer the source of the name Cepha, quite specifically, and it is important in any such discussion to first show the passage, as I did, as part of the data base for any interpretation.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

NOGO

Sorry, perhaps I used a bad choice of words.
You seem to want a critique of your opinion/theory but don't want to tell what that is. I chose the word "game" but did not intent this to mean that it was not a serious discussion.

I am certain that you have a good reason to believe that the issue of the martyrs tends to favour the HJ but I don't think that you will share these thoughts with us.

I started reading Loisy since you mentioned him. The problem that I have with his theory is that I can't understand how a bunch of illiterate fishermen from Galilee created all this myth or managed to convince others to do so.

Like you with the MJ I see problems with the HJ.

Amaleq13

The Gospel stories are clearly set in a time earlier than Paul's letters. Your rather unique beliefs about dating those texts notwithstanding, there is nothing in Paul's letters to support the claim that "Cephas" was a nickname for a man named "Simon".

Steven Avery

Right, but since "the Gospel stories are set in a time..." if those stories were circulating in any fashion, either thorugh the Gospel account of John, or preceding logia, or possibly a semitic Matthew, then there would be no reason for Paul's letters to have a redundant explanation. And all of Paul's usages of Cepha fit very well with Peter. As a side note, John Gill points out that the Toldet Yeshu refers to Peter as "Simeon Kepha".

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Amaleq13

There is no credible evidence to support your "if" or "possibly" so we have no good reason to assume these stories were circulating while Paul lived.

It is misleading to suggest that only a "redundant explanation" would constitute support for the Gospel story or that this is what is being argued when it is observed there is no mention by Paul. An unexplained reference to "Simon Peter" or even to a "Simon" in a context where it could be argued he was talking about the same fellow he called "Peter/Cephas" (setting aside any possiblity of two different men) would be more than adequate. Even a reference to a "Simon" who was apparently someone important in the Jerusalem group would carry significant weight.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, what I'm telling you, Peter, is that your hypothesis is somewhat arbitrary, since there's no real evidence that Kephas and Paul both died during the persecution of the Christians as mentioned by Tacitus. We don't even know for sure if there _was_ any such persecution of Christians. And neither do we know for sure if Kephas died in Rome.

All the best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Yes, I do think that the issue of the martyrs tends to favour the HJ, and that this is in fact self-evident. Because the HJ would have set a clear precedent for further martyrdoms.

It is part of the human nature to follow the leader. If there was no leader, i.e. no clear precedent, then the motivation of that first martyr (whoever and whenever he was) creates quite a puzzle.

Well, perhaps not all of them were illiterate fishermen?

Yuri.

Vorkosigan

That may well have been one of the reasons Mark created his fictional account of Jesus' life and death.

Not a problem. It's human nature to have social identities that we will kill and die for. And the first martyrs, those who deliberately chose death rather than apostasy and life, seem to be second century, which makes their motivation the usual one of social identity formation and internalization. Nothing very mysterious about it.

None of them were. The fisherman story is strictly fiction, based on the call of Elisha. Paul does not know it, or that the original disciples were from Galilee. Mark's is the first mention of Galilee in the tradition.

Vorkosigan

NOGO

.

Great! we have something to talk about now.
As Vork points out the story of the first martyr need not be real. I am sure that you will acknowledge that possibility.

Jesus performed miracles and so did his disciples, yet none of later generations of Christians did the same. Jesus said that with a grain of faith you can move a mountain etc. I do not see too many following this example. Moses performed spectacular miracles and so did Joshua but later generations did not. It is a lot easier to create such stories in the past tense. How do you know that Jesus' martyred death is historic?

Even if you believe that Jesus was martyred surely you do not believe that he willingly and knowingly accepted this. It is not obvious that the story is formulated to encourage people to follow suit.

If Jesus was just arrested and cruxified and then others invented the idea that he died for our sins and that he willingly did this to save mankind etc then his martyrdom is a myth. The essential element to your position is clearly an add-on. John the Baptist was also killed. Somebody could have added the willing martyr bit on top of his story.

Paul says that he did what he did often at the risk of his very life yet he never suggests that he or any other Christians should die as Jesus did. Paul is a man with a mission. His goal is not martyrdom. Do any of the Epistles encourage Martyrdom?

Bottom line for me.
Jesus martyred death was created to encourage the followers not to quit and works very much like excommunication. If you are excommunicated you lose all your friends. By making the exit out of the group difficult they effectively imprison them. If you deny Jesus to save yourself your faith is false and you are no longer a member of the brotherhood. You have effectively excommunicated yourself. A tough choice if your whole life revolves around the community.

So Jesus' death may be historical but not his martyrdom. The two are separate. His martyrdom is clearly a fabrication which leaves open the other question.