dog-on

Catholics equated Cephas to Peter, so no issue.

James, however, points to a second century argument, as you said, the gospels weren't to concerned with him, at least until Luke/Acts, that is.

avi

No Ted. Mashiach does not mean "Messiah". It means "annointed", hence my question. I hope you will address this question, as I address yours, below.

I am unaware of ANYONE who claimed to have seen Jesus alive, post crucifixion. I hope you are not referring to Paul, who claimed to have seen a ghost, not a living person.

The gospels are obviously contradictory on this topic, and fail to impress as "historical sources". So, who exactly, claimed to have observed a living breathing human being, several days post mortem. I don't need any gobbledeegook from the old testament, which never refers to Jesus, in any event, what I need is a written document authored by a CONTEMPORARY of Jesus, who had seen him alive, AFTER Jesus' crucifixion.

avi

TedM

Then why did someone insert "Peter" in Galatians when Paul refers to him as "Cephas"? And don't the early church fathers all reference him as Peter?


That's not good enough to me. If there was an argument then you simply don't mention him if you are touting Peter. If the winners write history, then since the gospels weren't concerned about him (and even portray him as a disbeliever) why would 1 Cor be concerned with him?

TedM

Same way they called him the king of the Jews. It isn't hard to see how if some Messiac verses stressed a king-deliverer-savior and others only stressed a deliverer-savior that the 'king' or 'anointed' part would be changed to be metaphorical with sufficient supportive evidence.



Now you are throwing your own readings of history into the equation and muddying the issue you raised. You asked HOW something could happen and I gave you an answer. Now you are coming back with more caveots based on your reading of history. If I knew you would be doing that I wouldn't have bothered to answer you in the first place.

Since people have had dreams and visions of the dead since the beginning of mankind I consider this requirement to be unnecessarily restrictive for answering your original question. It sounds more to me like I gave you a very reasonable answer and you are rejecting it simply because you don't like it -- perhaps because it is too tidy, makes too much sense.

dog-on

They are interchangeable, so it wouldn't have mattered to the Catholic and was probably just a brain fart.
Have you ever read Acts, Ted?

TedM

Not convinced..


Mentioning someone because their role in history was too great to not do so is one thing, mentioning them very positively when it was unnecessary to do so is quite another..

spin

No, it wasn't a brain fart. You should note the Epistle of the Apostles, paragraph #2--you can find the text at Early Christian Writings. It contains a list of ten apostles, two of whom are Peter and Cephas. Paul certainly knew a Cephas. The name was used both in 1 Cor and Gal. But in Gal the name Peter appears at 2:7-8. While in 1 Cor there is no problem with the mention of Cephas, in Gal various manuscripts show the frequent exchange of Peter for Cephas, though never Cephas for Peter. The use of the name Peter is a later status quo. The insertion of Peter in Gal 2:7-8 puts forward the notion that Peter had the commission to the circumcised, yet immediately after that we learn James, Cephas and John had that commission. What we appear to have in Gal 2:7-8 is a manifestation of Petrine supremacy, added long after the writing of Paul with his knowledge of Cephas.

Later pundits embraced the separation between Peter and Cephas as they could turn Paul's attack on Cephas away from Peter onto another not so worthy apostle, who might be deserving of Paul's reprimand, but it wasn't Saint Peter.

Acts, by the way, is all for Peter.

aa5874

Well what makes sense to you does NOT make sense to me.

For example maryhelena presented unsubstantiated claims based on imagination and PRESUMED that 1 Cor.15 was interpolated.

Maryhelena did NOT even attempt to show that 1 Cor 15 was interpolated.


Excerpt from Post #34

Excerpt from Post #70

These posts from maryhelena make no sense with respect to the OP.

In order to establish that 1 Cor 15. was interpolated it MUST be shown that:

1. The Pauline writers could NOT have written all of 1 Cor 15.

2. The Pauline writers CLEARLY CONTRADICTED the questioned passages in some other previous writing or passages.

3. Other sources claimed the questioned passages were interpolated.

4. An epistle to the Corinthians was found WITHOUT the questioned passages.

Maryhelena did NOT establish any of those conditions but instead produced fanciful stories about an early Paul and a late Paul based on the PRESUMPTION that 1 Cor. 15 contained interpolations.

archibald

Me too!

dog-on

I actually agree, Spin. This was what I was referring to, but I do think that the Peter reference may have been a brain fart by the interpolator, who does use Cephas in other places.

I know that Acts is all for Peter, but it also takes care of James.