"The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Peter

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
outhouse
Posts: 3573
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by outhouse » Thu Oct 08, 2015 8:41 pm

Bernard Muller wrote: When? according to my study, from 34-35 CE and later.
Why? because they were persecuted in Jerusalem.




Cordially, Bernard

They were persecuted everywhere as they were probably seen as a threat to the temple by the powers that were.
Having "Greeks" spreading the Christian message outside Israel instead of Jesus' disciple makes a very bad case for continuity between Jesus and later Christians about Christian beliefs.

According to who? There was no orthodoxy here, and beliefs were so varied there WAS NO SUCH THING as continuity.

So now a contemporary scholar's opinion becomes a credible source!
You have no case against a professor at one of the better universities.


It also happens to match my conclusions for good reasons. Just because you don't accept them does not mean they are not the most plausible.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3313
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:25 am

to outhouse,
Having "Greeks" spreading the Christian message outside Israel instead of Jesus' disciple makes a very bad case for continuity between Jesus and later Christians about Christian beliefs.
According to who? There was no orthodoxy here, and beliefs were so varied there WAS NO SUCH THING as continuity.
I never disputed that: "beliefs were so varied there WAS NO SUCH THING as continuity". However, there would have been a lot more continuity if Jesus' disciples (& not a bunch of non-eyewitnesses "Greeks") would have converted the early Christians. Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus & Origen knew about the problem and opted to have Jesus' disciples doing the early Christian preaching all over the known world, contrary to what shows in 'Acts' (at least Irenaeus & Origen knew about 'Acts'!).
So now a contemporary scholar's opinion becomes a credible source!
You have no case against a professor at one of the better universities.
Biblical professor at any better universities have different opinions on almost anything. Attridge's views are not necessarily shared by all his peers, possibly by only a few.
Yes I have a case, based on parts of Acts, and a bit on Paul's Galatians. But I did not see any ancient evidence cited from your Attridge. And Attridge is no more than a Catholic apologist, trying to justify the many takes on Jesus, what he was and did and said, as eyewitnesses' accounts (and NOT from non-eyewitness "Greek"). Attridge essentially explained the apparent discontinuities as not what they seem, but different "understandings" from Jesus' own disciples.

Let's take a closer look at the main part of your quote from Attridge:
The historical reality is probably much more complex. The Christian movement probably began not from a single center but from many different centers
I agree in great part. The Christian movement started in Jerusalem among Hellenist Jews, but quickly after, got extinguished here but also migrated to other centers where it developed in different forms, regarding christology & theology.
where different groups of disciples of Jesus gathered and tried to make sense of what they had experienced with him and what had happened to him at the end of his public ministry.
Do you agree that groups of Jesus' own followers formulated in different ways the tenets of Christianity? I think you do not. The same for me. Others did, Hellenist non-eyewitness Jews, just like Paul.
Each of those groups probably had a very different take on what the significance of Jesus was. Some of them understanding his death and the resurrection experience, if they focused on it, in terms of exaltation. Others understanding it in terms of a resuscitation of the corpse of Jesus, others not worrying very much at all about the resurrection of Jesus, but concentrating on his teaching and trying to propagate that.
Somewhat acceptable by me (and probably you), but for me, this groups of Christians were not including Jesus' disciples. And Attridge takes the resurrection as granted, as a fact which actually happened. WRONG!
"We can see, even in the canonical text, in the Book of Acts, that there were different groups that were in competition with one another."
YES, but the appearances of these groups in 'Acts" are narrated AFTER the Greek dispersion. So our Attridge used Acts as evidence as I do. But he did not consider the Greek dispersion from Jerusalem. I wonder why? ;)
It also happens to match my conclusions for good reasons. Just because you don't accept them does not mean they are not the most plausible.
It looks to me what matches your conclusions is only "The Christian movement probably began not from a single center but from many different centers". I mostly agree with that also.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Michael BG
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by Michael BG » Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:06 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:to Michael BG,
Being of repute does not mean the pillars were Christians. At the time of the Jerusalem council, I found out Paul's christology was not too objectionable to the pillars. Paul did not have yet "Son of God", sacrifice for atonement of sins, uselessness of the Law and the pre-existence. Yes Paul's message had Jesus raised from the dead, but the pillars had already learned to tolerate that from Jewish Christians. Yes, you said it: "in return they wanted Paul and those he converts to remember the poor in Jerusalem". That would explain why they were tolerant: they needed the money!
And also, the pillars were more amenable because Barnabas, a former member of the Church of Jerusalem when under "Aramaic" leadership, was with Paul then.
More, according to Gal 2:2, the pillars did not seem to know about Paul's gospel. So Paul could hide or skip or dilute anything contentious.
All of that is explained on my website at various locations. And the critical Gal 2:7-8 (except "on the contrary") is most likely an interpolation, as explained here: http://historical-jesus.info/109.html
I don’t understand why you wish to discuss Gal 2:7-8 as I don’t recall using it in my counter case.
Again you are trying to move the debate. I thought I was clear – I am discussing the weakness of your position that “the disciples” or the leadership of the Jerusalem church did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus. The issue is not whether they accepted all of Paul’s Christology. (With regard to pre-existence of Jesus, this is in Philippians, one of the earliest of Paul’s letters [2:5-9].) You have not provided any evidence for your conclusions above.
Bernard Muller wrote:
He also calls them apostles – “nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me” (Gal 1:17a).
So what? That does not mean Paul and those apostles had to preach exactly the same thing.
Paul bases his authority on being an apostle and he often uses that title when he introduces himself – Rom 1:1, 1 Cor 1:1, 2 Cor 1:1, and Gal 1:1.
I do not see any connection here. Paul called himself apostle, so others before and during his time. So what? Someone can call himself a pastor, and call others the same. That does not mean they preach the same thing and are from the same denomination.
Paul refers to “the collection for the saints (or holy-ones)" (1 Cor 16:1) and it will be carried to Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:3) and “I am going to Jerusalem to assist the saints … some contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem;” (Rom. 15:25) before going to Spain via Rome. Paul usually uses the term “αγιοι” (saints or holy-ones) for other Christians – Rom. 1.7, 1 Cor 1:2, Eph. 1:1 – “To all the saints who are present and believing in Christ Jesus”.
Ephesians was written after Paul. Of course, Paul could called the Christians of Rome & Corinth "holy ones" as a compliment in order to deserve their attention for his epistles. However I think the members of the church of Jerusalem were called "holy ones" more for their righteous lifestyle than for their beliefs.
Again you are giving an opinion, but there is nothing to make your conclusions better or more likely than mine. I have provided what I consider is evidence that Paul considered the leadership of Jerusalem to be his equals and equals of other people he considers Christians. You have not provided any evidence that he did not consider them in this way.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Paul states there is no difference between those converted by Cephas, or Apollos or himself – ‘"I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apol'los," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." Is Christ divided?’ (1 Cor 1:12b-13a) to which the answer is no ‘you are Christ’s’ (1 Cor 3:23a).
Well, if the threesome were preaching the same thing, why would some Corinthians abandon Paul to become followers of either Apollos or Cephas?
"you are Christ's", an expression of wishful thinking, does not mean there was no division among the Corinthians about what they believed then, under the influence of three different apostles.
Again you have failed to counter my conclusion, which is for Paul the message of these two people included something that meant those they converted were Christians. Again you seem to be confusing acceptance of all of Paul’s Christology as being necessary without providing any evidence. It is clear that Paul is trying to downgrade the differences between his, Peters and Apollos’ message but this does not mean he accepted that not believing in the resurrection of Jesus was OK. Whenever Pauls talks of his core message he includes the resurrection of Jesus and I think this is evidence he wouldn’t accept those who don’t believe in this vital tenet.
Bernard Muller wrote:
When Paul has a disagreement with Peter and James at Antioch it is not about belief in the resurrected Jesus Christ, it is only about Gentiles living under the Torah (Gal 2:11-21).
I wrote to outhouse the pillars had to tolerate that belief. Anyway, if that was intolerable, that issue would have flared up before during the council of Jerusalem, which is not stated by Paul (but Paul was very unlikely to state any difference of beliefs between him and those who really knew the earthly Jesus).
About the Galileans not believing about a resurrected Jesus:
http://historical-jesus.info/8.html
More generally, about them never becoming Christians:
http://historical-jesus.info/108.html
I can’t see anything in these posts that I have not already countered.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Therefore from Paul’s letters it is clear that Paul had no dispute with the Jerusalem leadership regarding Paul’s preaching of Jesus Christ resurrected.
Actually, Paul had little or no consideration for what the Jerusalem leadership was preaching & believed:
Gal 2:6 "And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) ..."
Gal 1:11-12 "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel.
For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ."


Cordially, Bernard
These are evidence that Paul had differences with the leadership of the Jerusalem church and that he claimed his authority to preach from his experience of appearances of the resurrected Jesus. However the only evidence in Paul’s letters are that the only difference he had with the leadership of the Jerusalem church was on whether Gentiles had to keep the Torah. Again you have provided no counter-evidence.

outhouse
Posts: 3573
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by outhouse » Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:26 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:And Attridge is no more than a Catholic apologist


Cordially, Bernard
False he eats you alive forward and back.


He is throwing out much of acts, that is not what an apologist does. William Lane Craig is an apologist, this man is a well respected Professor scholar.


I don't dislike you, but you are no where near his equal.

outhouse
Posts: 3573
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by outhouse » Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:43 pm

Bernard Muller wrote: The Christian movement started in Jerusalem among Hellenist Jews

Cordially, Bernard
Speculation with no evidence.

but quickly after, got extinguished here
You don't know that. You think these were the only Christians in this geographic location???


Just because only 1 house is noted, did not mean there were not many other houses.


, but also migrated to other centers where it developed in different forms,

Your ignoring that this had been going on at Passover since the beginning, since the crucifixion people were going into the diaspora with this theology and mythology, each year.

outhouse
Posts: 3573
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by outhouse » Fri Oct 09, 2015 4:51 pm

Bernard Muller wrote: However, there would have been a lot more continuity if Jesus' disciples (& not a bunch of non-eyewitnesses "Greeks") would have converted the early Christians


Cordially, Bernard
But there is no evidence of any kind, any tradition that can be pointed near an eyewitness at all.


No pious Aramaic Galilean followers of jesus who were probably fighting Hellenist corruption and oppression, would be caught dead teaching Hellenist how to pervert Judaism. By my accounts.

Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus & Origen knew about the problem and opted to have Jesus' disciples doing the early Christian preaching all over the known world

Early Hellenistic followers rhetorically attributed their teachings to these first Aramaic followers, as means to build authority in their own teachings. All it would take is one real apostle to have spoken at Passover and some dudes cousin heard these 10 words and the next thing you know your getting a half hour commentary of the thousand words they said he stated.


Ever person you mentioned probably used Paul as their only source.

Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by Adam » Sat Oct 10, 2015 11:10 am

iskander wrote:The Bible comprise the New Testament and the Old Testament and furthermore Jesus was circumcised as Luke reports.
Define "Old Testament" and when it was canonized.

iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by iskander » Sat Oct 10, 2015 11:42 am

This article is about the Old Testament canon of the Christian Bible. For the related Jewish canon, see Tanakh. For its Hebrew and Aramaic text, see Hebrew Bible. For the major textual tradition of that text, see Masoretic Text. For ancient Greek version, see Septuagint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1223
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Nightmare On El Street. Freely Kuriouser's Revenge

Post by JoeWallack » Wed Oct 21, 2015 9:27 am

Nightmare On El Street
Synoptsis:
Drifter Freely Kuriouser comes into town and adults are amazed at what he does with his hands on
little children. They chop him down and burn him, yet he comes back in their dreams to take his revenge.



JW:
Let's see what's playing now:

Mark 9:1

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
2532 [e] kai καὶ And Conj
3004 [e] elegen ἔλεγεν he said V-IIA-3S
846 [e] autois αὐτοῖς to them, PPro-DM3P
281 [e] Amēn Ἀμὴν Truly Heb
3004 [e] legō λέγω I say V-PIA-1S
4771 [e] hymin ὑμῖν to you, PPro-D2P
3754 [e] hoti ὅτι That Conj
1510 [e] eisin εἰσίν there are V-PIA-3P
5100 [e] tines τινες some IPro-NMP
5602 [e] hōde ὧδε ⇔ here Adv
3588 [e] tōn τῶν of those Art-GMP
2476 [e] hestēkotōn ἑστηκότων standing, V-RPA-GMP
3748 [e] hoitines οἵτινες who RelPro-NMP
3756 [e] ou οὐ no Adv
3361 [e] μὴ not Adv
1089 [e] geusōntai γεύσωνται shall taste V-ASM-3P
2288 [e] thanatou θανάτου of death, N-GMS
2193 [e] heōs ἕως until Conj
302 [e] an ἂν anyhow Prtcl
3708 [e]idōsin ἴδωσιν they see V-ASA-3P
3588 [e] tēn τὴν the Art-AFS
932 [e] basileian βασιλείαν kingdom N-AFS
3588 [e] tou τοῦ - Art-GMS
2316 [e] Theou Θεοῦof God N-GMS
2064 [e] elēlythuian ἐληλυθυῖαν having come V-RPA-AFS
1722 [e] en ἐν with Prep
1411 [e] dynamei δυνάμει. power. N-DFS

A most misunderstood verse (by Christianity). Almost every Christian commentary explains that the above is a positive verse and means that some people in Jesus' supposed audience would live to see Jesus' supposed return. Yet every objective way of examining the verse:
  • 1) What it literally says

    2) The surrounding context

    3) The overall context of GMark
indicates the opposite. The verse is negative and means that some people in Jesus' supposed audience would die at Jesus' supposed return. Symptomatic of this observation is that there is significant disagreement among Christian commentators as to how (evidence) the verse is a positive. The agreement is that it is (conclusion).

Also symptomatic of a problem here for orthodox Christianity is the significant Textual variation:

http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php
Variant readings

9:1 (Münster)
τῶν ὧδε ἑστηκότων] (‭א) A C D L W Θ f13 (33) Byz syrh Origen ς
ὧδε τῶν ἑστηκότων] B D* WH NA
τῶν ἑστηκότων ὧδε] p45 f1

ἑστηκότων] Byz ς WH
ἑστηκότων μετ' ἐμοῦ] D 565 it

ἵστημι:
G2476
A prolonged form of a primary word στάω staô (of the same meaning, and used for it in certain tenses); to stand (transitively or intransitively), used in various applications (literally or figuratively): - abide, appoint, bring, continue, covenant, establish, hold up, lay, present, set (up), stanch, stand (by, forth, still, up). Compare G5087.
The Legendary Vorkosigan has limited related quantity of commentary here:

Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark
Chapter 9


v1: Price argues (2003) that this verse indicates a much later period when most of the disciples had died. While that is reasonable, there is no reason that Jesus could not have uttered this during his own life time.

v1: the chiastic structure of the previous pericope indicates that Mark 9:1 does not belong here, but to the previous pericope. Perrin (1999) noted its affinities to Mk 8:30 and 8:38. He argues that Mark produced this saying to serve its current function in the pericope that runs from 8:27-91.

v1: Hatina (2005) argues that the 9:1 is not a promise to followers but a threat against those who reject Jesus:

"In contrast to this conventional approach, the reading proposed in this essay begins with the group(s) which will experience ("see") "the kingdom of God coming with power", first in 9,1 and then in 13,26 and 14,62. When prior attention is given to these groups in the context of the narrative, Jesus’ prediction in Mark 9,1 emerges not as a blessing promised to the protagonists, but as a threat of judgment aimed at antagonists."
But boy, does he have the quality:
v1: Hatina (2005) argues that the 9:1 is not a promise to followers but a threat against those who reject Jesus:
Thomas R. Hatina, «Who Will See "The Kingdom of God Coming with Power" in Mark 9,1 — Protagonists or Antagonists?», Vol. 86 (2005) 20-34


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by iskander » Wed Oct 21, 2015 10:16 am

Moses was not a drifter, but a fleeing murderer. It is true that he came back to murder a few more, but we have forgiven him and his conquering tribe.

Post Reply