Ben C Smith

How hard would it have been to actually check out the link gurugeorge was referring to?

He meant, of course, that some texts explicitly list or present Peter and Cephas as the names of two different individuals.

Epistula Apostolorum, section 2:

We -- John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Batholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas -- write to the churches of the east and the west, of the north and the south, declaring and imparting to you that which concerns our Lord Jesus Christ.

Clement of Alexandria apud Eusebius, History of the Church 1.12.2:

Η δ ιστορια παρα Κλημεντι κατα την πεμπτην των υποτυπωσεων εν η και Κηφαν, περι ου φησιν ο Ϊαυλος· Οτε δε ηλθεν Κηφας εις Αντιοχειαν, κατα προσωπον αυτω αντεστην, ενα φησι γεγονεναι των εβδομηκοντα μαθητων, ομωνυμον Ϊετρω τυγχανοντα τω αποστολω.

And there is a story from Clement in the fifth of his Hypotyposeis in which he also says that Cephas, concerning whom Paul says: But, when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to his face, was one of the seventy disciples, one who happened to have the same name as Peter the apostle.

Ben.

aa5874

And, how do you explain John 1.40-42 Just look at the Greek for John 1.42, do you see Khfav and Petrov?

So, Peter was called Cephas by Jesus, according to the author of John.

One of the letter writers claimed Peter was an apostle before him.

One of the letter writers claimed there were churches in Judaea before him.

One of the letter writers claimed he persecuted Jesus believers.

One of the letter writers claimed he was the last to see Christ after over 500 people saw him.

In Church History Eusebius claimed a letter writer called Paul was familiar with the gospel called Luke.

There is no indication at all anywhere in the NT that the letter writers preceeded Mark.

JoeWallack

JW:
God knows. The increase in Assertians does seem pretty gradual here so far regarding Jesus' supposed Passion:

1) Crucified by Rulers.

2) Persecuted and crucified by Rulers

3) Persecuted and crucified under Pilate

Possible Sources:

1) Revelation.

2) Peter's name is mentioned favorably.

3) Peter was an Apostle.

4) Peter issued commandments.

5) There was historical witness to the Passion.

At this point in the timeline no one has asserted that Peter was a Disciple of Jesus. Everyone is still following Paul's lead that it is the Audience who are the Disciples of Jesus.

The "authentic" Ignatius is dominated by an Assertian of Hierarchy. Hierarchy is one of the things that "Mark" reacts to which is evidence that "Mark" was written after "authentic" Ignatius.



Joseph

aa5874

If Peter was an apostle, then it should be obvious that he was one of the selected disciples of Jesus.

And how can letters from Ignatius be refered to as "authentic" when it is really not known when and who wrote these letters.

JoeWallack

JW:
Exxxcellent. Another candidate for Attribution:

Identification of "Mark":

First "Mark"

Source: Irenaeus

Date: c. 180

Description: Follower and interpreter of Peter

Author Source: Memory

Authority: None

Location: Unknown


Second "Mark"

Source: Eusebius referring to Clement

Date: Eusebius c. 324, Clement c. 200

Description: Follower of Peter

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Memory

Authority: Request of Romans

Location: Rome


Third "Mark"

Source: Eusebius referring to Origen

Date: Eusebius c. 324, Origen c. 230

Description: Follower of Peter

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Peter

Authority: Peter

Location: Rome


Fourth "Mark"

Source: Jerome

Date: c. 400

Author: Peter

Description of "Mark": Scribe

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Peter

Authority: Peter

Location: Rome


Fifth "Mark"

Source: Hippolytus/Fake Hippolytus

Date: c. 202 - c. 19th century (We'll see how the Assertian fits the timelieon at the end)

Author: Mark

Description of "Mark": Disciple of Jesus

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Jesus

Authority: Peter

Location: Rome


Sixth "Mark"

Source: Augustine

Date: c. 400

Author: Mark

Description of "Mark": Follower of Peter

Timing: Wrote after "Matthew" and before "Luke"

Author Source: "Matthew"

Authority: ?

Location: ?


Seventh "Mark" (Glaucias)

Source: Clement referring to Basilides

Date: Eusebius c. 324, Clement c. 200

Author or at least source of information: Glaucias

Description of "Mark": Interpreter of Peter

Timing: Contemporary to orthodox claim of "Mark" as interpreter of Peter

Author Source: Peter

Authority: ?


Eighth "Mark"

Source: Eusebius referring to Clement

Date: Eusebius c. 324, Clement c. 200

Description: Follower of Peter but not the Cephas (Peter) that Paul knew.

Timing: Wrote while Peter was still alive.

Author Source: Memory

Authority: Request of Romans

Location: Rome

So many "Marks" and "Peters". How do you decide which is the source, Rock, Papals, Caesars?


JW:
Regarding Paul's use of "Cephas" verses the Gospel's use of "Peter", if Paul spoke Aramaic and knew Peter and called him by the name he went by at the time than it's understandable that Paul would refer to Peter as "Cephas", which is the Aramaic word for "rock" transliterated into Greek, and later Fathers, who didn't know Aramaic, would be more likely to use the Greek name with a meaning of rock, "Peter", referring to the same person.

I think the majority of CBs mistranslate "Cephas" as "Peter" in Paul's letters so I will be documenting this as a Translation error at the blessed and holy ErrancyWiki.

What interests me here is that in the crucial Ironically contrasting trial scenes of Jesus and Peter, "Mark", as it stands, appears to have missed a great peace of Ironically balanced contrast by not naming the High Priest Caiaphas/Cephas as the other Gospellers do. You than have a Peter (rock) below defending 3 times and in the process of saving his life, losing it and a Caiaphas/Cephas (rock) above accusing 3 times and in the process of convicting Jesus' life, saving it, and convicting himself.



Joseph

aa5874

So far you have produced eight characters called "Mark" with an invariable description and timing.

Description: Follower of Peter.....
Timing: Wrote while Peter was alive....

There is no indication or information produced to show that the letters of the writers called Paul preceeded "Peter or "Mark".

In Galations 2.7-8, the letter writer used the Greek word Petrov and Petrw with regards to an apostle named Peter who preached the gospel.

This a clear indication that the letter writer called Paul is making reference to Peter the apostle in the writings of the author called Mark.

The author of Mark only used the Greek word for "stone", i.e Petrov, Petron, he seems to be unaware of the Aramic for "stone", the author of Mark seems to be [b]unaware[/i] that a letter writer had already used the Aramic for "stone" i.e Khfav, Khfan.

If the author of Mark copied from the letters from the writers called Paul surely he would have noticed that the writer used the Aramic for "stone" and could have put Aramic in the mouth of the so-called Jesus.

Instead, the author of John 1.42, may in fact be correcting the author of Mark. The author of John may have noticed that "Mark" made an error in Mark 3.16.

Mark 3.16 The author of Mark implied Jesus used the Greek word for "stone", i.ePetron.

But the author of John changed from Greek to Aramic, this author now implied that Jesus used the Aramic word for "stone", i.e Khfav.

John 1.42 The author of John seems to have corrected the author of Mark, Jesus spoke in Aramic, not Greek.

Now, it would appear or may indicate that the letter writer called Paul was aware of Mark 3.16 and John 1.42, since he used both the Greek and Aramic words for "stone" in Galations.

And it would appear that the author of Mark was NOT aware of gJohn or the letter writers called Paul.

JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing with a timelion for Attribution of authorship to "Mark" and the broader issue of claimed Source of authority, Revelation verses Historical witness:

c. 50 Paul

Paul is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. I don't believe Paul ever refers (uses the word "disciples") to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 Forged Paul - 2 Thessalonians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 More Forged Paul - Ephesians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

Add to this that the earliest physical evidence for any Canonical Gospel is P52 with a mid-range date of c. 165 and we have it on good authority that there was no attribution of authorship to "Mark" in the first century because there was no Gospel "Mark" to attribute to at the time.


c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

Once again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus. He never even mentions Peter, James El-all.

c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm

JW:
Stop yer Timelion. Transition to toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any Disciples of Jesus but does mention Peter. Implies that Peter was a historical witness but no evidence that Peter either wrote or was even the source of any writing.

CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus but instead refers to himself as a Disciple of Jesus (point Doherty). Does mention Peter. States that Peter issued commandments as an Apostle. So early second century with First Clement and Ignatius/Forged Ignatius we are gradually getting closer to an Assertian that Peter was a historical witness and the source for a related written support.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Asserts that Jesus' Passion had historical witness. Disputes Gnostic claims that Jesus was spirit only.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Strong hierarchy Assertian and doctrine of birth, passion and resurrection.

Christian doctrine starts with Paul's Assertian of resurrection. Now it has expanded to passion and birth. Why birth? Apparently at the time of Magnesians there are those who deny that Jesus was born. Presumably these are Gnostics who existed before any Canonical Gospel.



Joseph

aa5874

Again, the letter writer called Paul did mentioned Peter, did mention that Peter was an apostle, one of the 12 selected and ordained disciples of Jesus and did quote passages that appeared to be from gLuke. The letter writer also claimed that Andronicus and Junia were believers before him in the letter to the Romans and that there were churches in Judaea before him.

The author of Acts places Saul/Paul after the ascension of Jesus, after Peter began his preaching and during the persecution of Jesus believers.

The letter writers called Paul places themselves after the ascension of Jesus and after the apostles, and after Peter began preaching.

Even Eusebius, who it is claimed canonised the NT, claimed the letter writers called Paul was aware of the Gospel called Luke.

Now, if the words of the letter writer cannot be trusted or is found to be fictitious, then only external credible sources can locate "Paul" and there are none.

JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing with a timelion for Attribution of authorship to "Mark" and the broader issue of claimed Source of authority, Revelation verses Historical witness:

c. 50 Paul

Paul is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. I don't believe Paul ever refers (uses the word "disciples") to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 Forged Paul - 2 Thessalonians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 More Forged Paul - Ephesians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

Add to this that the earliest physical evidence for any Canonical Gospel is P52 with a mid-range date of c. 165 and we have it on good authority that there was no attribution of authorship to "Mark" in the first century because there was no Gospel "Mark" to attribute to at the time.


c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

Once again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus. He never even mentions Peter, James El-all.

c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm

JW:
Stop yer Timelion. Transition to toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any Disciples of Jesus but does mention Peter. Implies that Peter was a historical witness but no evidence that Peter either wrote or was even the source of any writing.

CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus but instead refers to himself as a Disciple of Jesus (point Doherty). Does mention Peter. States that Peter issued commandments as an Apostle. So early second century with First Clement and Ignatius/Forged Ignatius we are gradually getting closer to an Assertian that Peter was a historical witness and the source for a related written support.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Asserts that Jesus' Passion had historical witness. Disputes Gnostic claims that Jesus was spirit only.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Strong hierarchy Assertian and doctrine of birth, passion and resurrection.

Christian doctrine starts with Paul's Assertian of resurrection. Now it has expanded to passion and birth. Why birth? Apparently at the time of Magnesians there are those who deny that Jesus was born. Presumably these are Gnostics who existed before any Canonical Gospel.


c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm


JW:
Emphasis is on Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Strong hierarchy Assertian and three mystery doctrine of virginity of Mary and birth and death of Jesus.



Joseph

JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing with a timelion for Attribution of authorship to "Mark" and the broader issue of claimed Source of authority, Revelation verses Historical witness:

c. 50 Paul

Paul is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. I don't believe Paul ever refers (uses the word "disciples") to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 Forged Paul - 2 Thessalonians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

c. 90 More Forged Paul - Ephesians

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=1&version=31

Again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus.

Add to this that the earliest physical evidence for any Canonical Gospel is P52 with a mid-range date of c. 165 and we have it on good authority that there was no attribution of authorship to "Mark" in the first century because there was no Gospel "Mark" to attribute to at the time.


c. 100 Epistle of Barnabas

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.i.html

Once again, the author is clearly claimed Revelation. He is unaware of any Canonical Gospel. He never refers to any Disciples of Jesus. He never even mentions Peter, James El-all.

c. 110 First Clement

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...t/1clement.htm

JW:
Stop yer Timelion. Transition to toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any Disciples of Jesus but does mention Peter. Implies that Peter was a historical witness but no evidence that Peter either wrote or was even the source of any writing.

CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus but instead refers to himself as a Disciple of Jesus (point Doherty). Does mention Peter. States that Peter issued commandments as an Apostle. So early second century with First Clement and Ignatius/Forged Ignatius we are gradually getting closer to an Assertian that Peter was a historical witness and the source for a related written support.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Asserts that Jesus' Passion had historical witness. Disputes Gnostic claims that Jesus was spirit only.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm

JW:
Toned down Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Strong hierarchy Assertian and doctrine of birth, passion and resurrection.

Christian doctrine starts with Paul's Assertian of resurrection. Now it has expanded to passion and birth. Why birth? Apparently at the time of Magnesians there are those who deny that Jesus was born. Presumably these are Gnostics who existed before any Canonical Gospel.

c. 110 The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm

JW:
Emphasis is on Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Strong hierarchy Assertian and three mystery doctrine of virginity of Mary and birth and death of Jesus.


c. 125 Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm

JW:
Emphasis is on Revelation. Unaware of any Canonical Gospel. Does show awareness of supposed Jesus' sayings. Never refers to any historical Disciples of Jesus. Does not mention Peter. Emphasis on morals and ethics that even hierarchy is subject to. Doctrines of Faith expanded to Negative command. It is blasphemy (evil) not to believe them. Note the development of Doctrine here:

1) What's important is belief in Jesus.

2) Belief in Jesus includes basic doctrines.

3) Not believing in these doctrines is evil.



Joseph