offa

[B]Peter[/P]

After Peter's introduction in Jn 1, the nature
of his character established, nothing is said to
him directly, until 6:68. Perhaps convinced that
Jesus' revolution may be the way to secure a
higher position, he now seems to be a disciple.
Having been rejected by "many of his disciples"
Jesus asks the "twelve" if any of them wish to
leave, and Peter, ever the keen one, responds
vehemently, claiming to "believe" Jesus is the
chosen one of God. To this alleged confession
Jesus responds by accusing one of them of being
a "devil."A strange response, one may think, but
not so strange if we remember what"Cephas"
implies - Peter is not trustworthy until he has
proven himself contrite and humbled.
This caution is retained in Mt 16:23, "Get
behind me , Satan! You are a stumbling block to
me, for you are setting your mind not on divine
things but on human things." Paul, too, has no
high opinion of Peter, as is evidenced in Gal 2:
11f, where Peter is rejected as a hypocrite who
is too easily swayed by the circumstances in
which he finds himself, rather than adhering to
the path Jesus has, supposedly, set for him. As
far as the FG is concerned, Peter is vying for a
more superior position within the group, and is "
easily swayed" by this evil.
Jesus, is, by now, fully aware that he is
under scrutiny - he is followed by "emissaries"
it seems, wherever he goes,first to Bethabara,
then Aenon, now Tiberias ... is there someone
amongst his disciples who is acting mole? Could
it be Peter? Jesus doesn't trust him.

offa

This epistle in which the same Clement writing to
James the Lord's brother informs him of the death of
Peter, and that he has left him his successor in his
chair and his teachings, and in which also the whole
subject of church order is treated. The Ante-
Nicene Fathers volume viii p.75

What I surmise is that Saint Peter died before
Saint James?

AD 62
(In about March AD 62, Ananus-Demas was made high priest
in Jerusalem. During his 3-month reign he caused James,
the brother of Jesus to be stoned to death (Ant. 20:197-203).
Jesus The Man, p.389

What I surmise is that Saint Peter died before AD 62.


AD 64
In summer, AD 64, following the great fire of Rome, Nero
blamed the Christians and crucified large numbers of
them (Tacitus, Ann. 15:44). Peter and Paul were both put
to death by Nero (Eusebius, H.E. 2,25:5-8).
Jesus The Man, p.390

What I surmise is that we have an error in chronology
or that Eusebius is a liar.

However these things may be, Acts' presentation of Paul's
last days is fuzzy in the extreme. Acts appears to know
nothing about Paul's death or, if it does, is unwilling to
tell us about it because it was presumably too
embarrassing. It is to early church sources we must go
for information that Paul was beheaded, probably by Nero,
and a somewhat preposterous version of Peter's death as
well (War 4-359-63), Acts ends in 62 CE, the year of
James' death, and Paul is under house arrest - even if
this - in Rome (Acts 28:30-31).
James the brother of Jesus, p.527

What I surmise is that Thiering and Eisenman both
conclude that the death of James occurred in 62 CE.

Offa

diana

Very nice theory, offa. This would explain why Peter denied him thrice, wouldn't it? That bit never made sense to me.

Come to think of it:

"Peter, before the cock crows thrice, you will deny my thrice."

"Will not, Lord."

"Will too."

"Will not."

"Will too."

This leaves Peter in an interest position, doesn't it? If he doesn't deny Jesus three times as prophesied, then Jesus just made a false prophesy and Peter has probably just effectively committed suicide.

If Peter does deny him thrice, he gets to live and proves the divinity of Jesus.

Not that Jesus was around to appreciate it or anything.

But I like your theory.

I don't know about the chronology, but Eusebius was a confirmed chronic committer of pious fraud.

d

offa

ANT 18-155 So he was reduced to the
utmost necessity, and came to Ptolemais, and
because he knew not where else to get a
livelihood, he thought to sail to Italy; but as
he was restrained from so doing for want of
money he desired Marsyas, who was his freedman,
to find some method for procuring him so much as
he wanted for this purpose, by borrowing such a
sum of some person or the other.

ANT 18-156 So Marsyas desired of Peter,
who was a freedman of Bernice, Agrippa's mother,
and by the right of her testament was bequeathed
to Antonia, to loan so much upon Agrippa's own
bond and security;

ANT 18-157 but he accused Agrippa of
having defrauded him of certain sums of money,
and so obliged Marsyas, when he made a bond of
twenty thousand Attic drachmae, to accept of
twenty five hundred drachmae less than what he
desired; which the other allowed of, because he
could not help it.

ANT 18-158 Upon the receipt of this
money, Agrippa came to Anthedon, and took
shipping, and was going to set sail, but
Herennius Capito, who was the procurator of
Jamnia, sent a band of soldiers to demand of him
three hundred thousand drachmae of silver, which
was by him owing to Caesar's treasury while he
was at Rome, and so forced him to stay.

ANT 18-159 He then pretended that he
would do as he bade him; but when night came on,
he cut his cables, and went off, and sailed to
Alexandria, where he desired Alexander the
alabarch to lend him two hundred thousand
drachmae; but he said that he would not lend it
to him, but would not refuse it to Cypros, as
greatly astonished at her affection to her
husband, and at the other instances of her virtue;


The above is taken from Josephus and is about
Herod Agrippa I. There is more to this setting
than what meets the eye. Antonia was the most
powerful woman in Rome. Bernice, the Jewess, was
able to flee to Rome during the turmoils in Judea.
King Herod the Great had executed her husband and
her capability to leave a horrible situation was
through the means of her mother, Salome. Salome
was king Herod's sister. The plot thickens.

Of course, you apologetics are going to say
this was another Peter. Well, this is Saint Peter.
My free thought allows it because I am not
inhibited in thought. Why would Peter be a
freedman? He certainly must have certain
privileges because the Herodians allow him free
space. One must wonder is Peter, like Paul, a
Herod? Eisenman believes that Saint Paul was
a descendant of king Herod the Great. (James the
brother of Jesus, p.889)(War 2:427)
most eminent were Saul, and Antipas, and
Costobarus, who were of the king's kindred;
AND (War 4:418 ) So the men of power
perceiving that the sedition was too hard for
them to subdue, and that the danger which would
arise from the Romans would come upon them first
of all, endeavored to save themselves, and sent
ambassadors, some to Florus, the chief of which
was Simon the son of Ananias; and others to
Agrippa, among whom the most eminent were Saul,
and Antipas, and Costobarus, who were of the
king's kindred;

The above is written to show that Saint Paul
could very well be a Herodian. Thus a freedman
with close connections to Rome. What about Peter?
Can we tie him together as Bernice's freedman to
a descendant of king Herod the Great?

Offa

Geoff Hudson

Offa,

To muddy the waters a little, I would suggest that Peter is a pseudonym for James who was the real character executed and who held the chair as bishop of Rome as well as Jerusalem. In the epistle you refer to, James is described as the lord, and the bishop of bishops - in effect the archbishop. The date of James' execution was CE64 near to the time of the fire. The epistle you refer to was the Epistle of [Clement]{Josephus/Paul} to John, James the lord's brother. Paul was telling John about his brother's death. It was John, James the lord's brother who was stoned to death by Ananus. After the execution of James, Josephus/Paul returned to Palestine, probably totally disillusioned. In CE 64, Josephus/Paul was in his 26th year (Life 3). That is why there is no account of Paul's death. War was imminent.

Sincerely,

Geoff

offa

Hi Diana,
Divine One, Goddess, Dianna (Latin)

The story about the cockcrowing tells about a
timeline. Ben Franklin is given credit for
Daylight Savings Time, but the Gospel of John
tells the same story. Look it up. Cockcrowing
is a timeskeeper. "Hear ye, Hear ye, it is 2 a.m."
Can you imagine that man with a lantern in 1776
in Philadephia. He is the c(l)ock-crower. On
this Friday morning at 2 a.m., March 20, 33 CE.
On this night the clock is going to be turned back
3 hours so the watchman has to do a double shift
and work six hours. He has to say "Hear Ye, Hear
Ye, it is 2. a.m." twice. Therefore the Cock
Crows Twice and the magic result is an extra
six hours of darkness with it being dark 3 hours
already. And, before the cock crows again Peter
is going to reject Jesus three times.

OFFA

Geoff Hudson

Diana,

Would you like me to tell you where Peter's three denials come from?

Geoff

offa

Our Man in Judea, p.312

The Problem with Peter

As for Peter, if we allow him the benefit
of the doubt, he does attempt to attempt
to resign himself to Jesus' enforced abjection,
for according to The Acts of the Apostles
he does begin his public ministry with a call to
the fellow "Israelites" and he does refer to
Jesus as "Jesus of Nazareth," but when he makes
the fatal error ... two in fact ... he declares
Jesus to be the Messiah ben David (Acts 2:29f),
and he concerns himself with Gentiles (Acts 11).
It appears that Peter did not follow Jesus after
all.
When Paul first encounters Peter, so he
tells us in his Letter to the Galatians,
he "opposes him face to face" because Peter has
been tempted into eating among the Gentiles,
something Jesus would have strictly forbidden.
What is interesting here, though, is the name
Paul gives to Peter ... "Cephas." Where did he
get that name from, if not from the community of
the disciples under Lazarus? The name doesn't
appear anywhere else, and it is obviously just
as debasing in Paul's estimation, as it was when
Jesus first conferred it on Peter. Paul's
ministry is dated very soon after that of Jesus'
so this may yet another clue to the early
foundations of the FG.
Many of the things that Peter is reputed to
have done after Jesus' departure echo his
lifelong desire for position and authority and
his rivalry with Lazarus. As to counter the
testimony of the disciple "whom Jesus loved,
"Peter is found to be living with his mother-in-
law (as Lazarus lived with Martha), to have
taken jesus to his own home (as Lazarus
supposedly did, at Bethany), to have crowds to
see him because of his 'miraculous' deeds (as
crowds had come to see Lazarus after he had
been "raised from the dead"). Peter performs
"miracles" very similar to Jesus', but they are
not linked to any underlying theological
statement - it's as if they are performed (or
rather attributed to him) simply for the sake
of "proving" himself.
Given all this, the two letters attributed
to Peter cannot be written by the same man (i.e.
Peter) we have come to recognize in the FG. They
are full of the FG terminology, full of the
sentiments and eloquence of the FG author; for
instance: "Rid yourselves, therefore, of all
malice, and all guile, insincerity, envy, and
all slander ..." (1 Peter 2:1), and, 5:6: "
Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty
hand of God, so that he may exalt you in due
time." He then goes on to say that the followers
of Jesus are to emulate the disciples (just as
they are to emulate Jesus), i.e., they are to
see themselves as a "holy priesthood" in which
malice ... guile, insincerity ..." etc., are
washed away in a spiritual 'rebirth' This theme
only appears in the FG.

The above is just a little it about Peter, who
is this mysterious character?

OFFA

offa

I may not be as smart as you are Geoff, you
wrote

Diana,

Would you like me to tell you where Peter's
three denials come from?

Geoff


And that pisses me off! I am trying to hit on this
chick and you are implying that I am an ignoramus.

We have a humorous sidenote here. In another
life I am known as Otis McBroom. I first gained
infamy when Smokey the Bear pulled me over while
I was leaving the bar. I coal-cocked this little
mf ... i mean, I put him down. I put his hat back
on and leaned him against a telephone pole and
went home. I got a beer out of the back of my
pick-up and waited for the cops. I was in jail
in less than an hour. It cost me a whole bunch
of money. A few months later I was caught in a
blizzard and was forced off the road due to
traffic congestion. I was pretty cocked when
Smokey showed up. He was rescuing us. He said,
"Are you Otis McBroom?" I replied in the
affirmative. He told me he was coming to help and
please do not get aggressive. Hey, I am a peaceful
citizen and am endowed with the knowledge of
martial arts. I learned my lesson and would never
punch out Smokey again. But, I was flattered because
of name recognition.

I may not be as smart as you are Geoff but I
am big and physical and I picture you as far less
than that. I consider your remark as offensive.


OFFA

diana

Hi Geoff.

Matt 26:69-74; Mar 14:66-71; Luk 22:55-61. I had the prediction a bit wrong, though. Jesus predicted in Matt and Luke "before the cock crow" here. In Mark, it was "before the cock crow twice."

If this doesn't answer your question, I guess I don't understand what you're getting at.

Offa,

Where did you get the three hour clock setback in your theory?

d