The Bible

sinis

Well it seems the rabbit hole keeps getting deeper for me. Been doing a lot of reading on gnostic and other books that did not make it into the Bible. Read up on Anathasius of Alexandria and found out how the bible was compiled. Then last night I was reading the Book of Resurrection or something like that and the foreword talked about Peter and Paul having odds and that Paul was deemed by many as being a false prophet. So I start doing research on that and found huge discrepancies with Pauls writings, and lo and behold he authored over 15 of the 27 books, hmmmmm. So as I continue to research it is becoming clear that the bible may in fact be the words of a man and not inspired (at least not all of it). It looks like a ploy for the early church, not the Unitarians, to get control of the masses. Funny how the Gospels talk about what Jesus said, etc., yet Paul seems to throw Jesus' words right out the window and comes up with his own spin.

Shazard

If you want to prove that Paul changed everything you will do. If you want to prove that Jesus and his disciples was gay, you will succeed, if you want to prove that Jesus Christ is Elvis Presly you will succeed.

peacefulpete

Paul never met a "Peter". Paul speaks of a Cephus that he condenmed as a "Judaiser". Later editors tried to remedy this by slipping Peter, the Catholic Church's composite literary creation, into the text. The Gospels were written to give the Pauline Christ flesh and blood as well as some quotable sound bites. Paul didn't thow out the words of Jesus, they weren't written yet.

greendawn

There is a school of thought that there was a split in the early Christian Church between the Jewish Christians that wanted to follow the Mosaic law 100% and Paul who believed that law had been abrogated.

The book of acts tells us a modus vivendi was reached between the two sides, the Jewish Christians were to carry on applying the Law and the non Jewish Christians were to obey just three or four basic laws from Moses.

However they say that this story was made up to create the false impression that the Jewish Christians liked Paul. Where is the proof?

peacefulpete

The Galations version of the story (even with the emendations) simply cannot be harmonized with the Acts version. Conspiracies aside, the Acts story was at best represents a colored revision of history. The author may not have intended to deceive but rather been recounting a particular version as it was circulating in the mid second century when the book was written. Its particular emphasis upon Peter and Paul as iconic figures however suggests to many researchers that the work was calculated propaganda.

How much proof do we really need that a story about Paul's magic hankies and obvious legendary embellishments like Peter's healing shadow are fiction?

sinis

We'll this site was very convincing:

http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch1.2.7.html

Thoughts?

peacefulpete

The article does begin to identify the inconsistancies but unfortunately doesn't probe deep enough. Galations has itself been modified and expanded so as to include some kinship with the Jerusalem sect. The 3 year visit was not in Marcion's version of Galations and apart from that the language is awkward and forced. While there are differing opinions about exactly where the original text leaves off and picks up throughout this section, the likely original form had Paul going to the Jerusalem sect after 14 years (verse 2:1) and there being pressured to adopt circumcision. He resisted the idea of having his Greek companion cut, considering them as a corrupting the Gospel. This is in sharp contrast to Acts which has Paul happily having Tim circumcised so as not to offend anyone. Note that this visit after 14 years was to try to share his gospel with them not the other way around. He did it in private lest it appear he was trying to join them and have his converts get the wrong idea, making his mission 'in vain'. There is some usefulness in noting the switching back and forth between the names Cephus and Peter. Likely at least the initial clumsy interpolations simply used Peter whereas Paul never did so. However subsequent editors/copyists may have felt they needed to clarify chapter 2 and dropped "Peter" in where "Cephus" occurred in the story where Paul condemned a certain Cephus for his Jewish sectarianism. The revisions to the book must have been accomplished before Peter was rised to the heights the Catholic church assigned him but after the name Peter had become associated with early Christian mission work. Peter may also have been an actual person, notable in some quarters but not the same man as the Cephus of Paul or the Simon of the Gospels. Simon was I believe a fictitious character. Peter came in time to be the synthesis of these 3 personalities.

Leolaia

I concur about the relationship between Acts and Galatians and the subsequent redaction of Galatians 2, and I similarly have doubts about the historicity of the Markan pre-Easter Peter, but I do not view Cephas and Peter as originally separate figures later conflated in tradition for the reasons mentioned in earlier threads.

Also Western traditions about Peter (e.g. his martyrdom in Rome, his association with Clement, his role as the first "pope" and founder of the Catholic Church) clearly build on older Eastern traditions about Peter that were transferred and co-opted in the West.

peacefulpete

You know I think I remember concluding you were probably right but that the Markan Simon was absorbed into the other personality. Its been a while since we discussed this. I'll try to find the earlier thread.

peacefulpete

I should also qualify the statement about Paul going privately to the 'seeming leaders' of the Jerusalem sect so as to not make his labors 'in vain'. To me this makes a great deal of sense but some suspect both the description as "seeming leaders" and the "so as not to be running in vain" phrases as interpolations as well, assuming that "seeming leaders" was a positve description and that paul was here seeking approval so as not to be running in vain. I just don't find the argument compelling.

The Bible

Share this