Jesus' eyewitnesses never becoming Christians

[Bernard Muller]

One of the main conclusion of my research was to find out the like of Peter and James never believed Jesus was Christ, was resurrected, etc. Also even Paul did not call the members of the Church of Jerusalem, "in Christ", "in the Lord" or even simply "brothers".
For seeing all my arguments and supporting clues: http://historical-jesus.info/108.html
In case you wonder how Christianity started and became a religion after the crucifixion, despite the eyewitnesses being not Christians, see http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html

So far, I did not find any NT/early_Christianity critical author who would agree with me on that matter. I don't take any pride being on my own of this. Rather, I would prefer to find other(s) supporting my views.

Can members of this forum be able to help me here?

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

I have a book of a past French historicist who argued the same thing. Not only that: if I remember well, he thinks that the Pillars didn't even know that Jesus was crucified.

Tomorrow I can give you more specifics in such sense.

[Ethan]

Are these eyewitnesses historical people?

[Charles Wilson]

One of the main conclusion of my research was to find out the like of Peter [and James] never believed Jesus was Christ, was resurrected, etc.
..I would prefer to find other(s) supporting my views.

Can members of this forum be able to help me here?

I can give you all kinds of support but I'm not so sure you want the support I have to offer.

The character "Peter" has no idea that there is a "Jesus" much less a "Jesus Christ". Peter is a child at the Passover of 4 BCE [Note: I incorrectly typed "Jesus" here, which I replace with "Peter". Oops.]. He witnesses the murder of 3000+ in the Temple. He leaves the Realm of Heaven and saves a Priest. 12 years later he returns to Jerusalem in a "Duplicate Passover" and ostensibly sees this Priest crucified.

"My God, my God, for this was I spared?"

The Story was dismembered and rewritten. "Peter" is written into new material, esp. in Acts as well. Acts is a barely concealed history of the Fall of Jerusalem and the replacement of Judaism with the Roman story of a savior/god who is loyal to Rome.

If there was a "Real Peter"- no sure thing - he would have been long dead by this time.

Best to you,

CW

[Irish1975]

Acts is a barely concealed history of the Fall of Jerusalem and the replacement of Judaism with the Roman story of a savior/god who is loyal to Rome.

That’s a book I’d love to read!

[Charles Wilson]

Acts is a barely concealed history of the Fall of Jerusalem and the replacement of Judaism with the Roman story of a savior/god who is loyal to Rome.

That’s a book I’d love to read!

Acts 9: 32 - 35 (RSV):

[32] Now as Peter went here and there among them all, he came down also to the saints that lived at Lydda.
[33] There he found a man named Aene'as, who had been bedridden for eight years and was paralyzed.
[34] And Peter said to him, "Aene'as, Jesus Christ heals you; rise and make your bed." And immediately he rose.
[35] And all the residents of Lydda and Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord.

The Key (and there is almost always a Key...) to this is "...bedridden for eight years and was paralyzed...". This is another story of the 12th Legion as will be seen below. What happened to the 12th Legion 8 years prior to the Fall of Jerusalem?:

Tacitus, Annals, Book 15:

"All the more vigorously did Vologeses press the besieged, now attacking the legions' entrenchments, and now again the fortress, which guarded those whose years unfitted them for war. He advanced closer than is the Parthian practice, seeking to lure the enemy to an engagement by such rashness. They, however, could hardly be dragged out of their tents, and would merely defend their lives, some held back by the general's order, others by their own cowardice;
***
"Meanwhile Paetus threw a bridge over the river Arsanias, which flowed by the camp, apparently with the view of facilitating his march. It was the Parthians, however, who had required this, as an evidence of their victory; for the bridge was of use to them, while our men went a different way. Rumour added that the legions had been passed under the yoke, with other miserable disgraces, of which the Armenians had borrowed imitations. For they not only entered our lines before the Roman army began to retire, but also stood about the camp streets, recognizing and dragging off slaves or beasts of burden which we had previously captured. They even seized clothes and detained weapons, for the soldiers were utterly cowed and gave up everything, so that no cause for fighting might arise. Vologeses having piled up the arms and bodies of the slain in order to attest our defeat, refrained from gazing on the fugitive legions...."

The story of Acts is the story of the 12th Legion and of Mucianus. Tacitus provides much of the Base Story. The 12th Legion is plagued by poor leadership and you should verify yourself that the 12th marched through Lydda and Sharon under the command of Cestius. They are crushed at Beth Horon and so on.

So they end up at Jerusalem and get portrayed Symbolically as Aeneas in the above quote.
It should be seen also that "Peter" would have been, minimally, in his 80s at this point. Peter does not acknowledge "Jesus" since Jesus was not even a possibility for a Peter at the death of Herod (In support of the OP!)

CW

[Irish1975]

Thanks for the follow up, Charles. It’s been a while since I’ve read that bit of Tacitus. Typological interpretation is a daring but tricky business.

Does anyone know of a comprehensive study of Rome-related characters, themes, incidents, and language in the NT? An all-purposed analysis of the Roman-ness of the Christian scriptures?

[Bernard Muller]

to Ethan,

Are these eyewitnesses historical people?

Check out http://historical-jesus.info/28.html
Also http://historical-jesus.info/20.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

I have a book of a past French historicist who argued the same thing. Not only that: if I remember well, he thinks that the Pillars didn't even know that Jesus was crucified.

Tomorrow I can give you more specifics in such sense.

The silence of the arch-apostles doesn't mean necessarily that they had wanted to profit , against Paul, of their status of old companions of the Teacher.

It means simply that about the circumstances of crucifixion, they didn't have other information.

In addition, the Tarsiote who, during his first voyage to Jerusalem, remained 15 days with Cephas, had any possibility to ask him and his version of the execution exposed some 10 years after proves that Peter didn't tell him no sure teaching.

(Pierre Emmanuel Guillet, Réflexions sur les Origines du Christianisme, p. 125, my translation)

ADDENDA
Note that for Guillet, the archontes are supernatural demons, and Paul was the first who revealed that secret to his Perfects: therefore the Pillars didn't know nothing about a crucified Jesus.

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,
Thank you,

I have a book of a past French historicist who argued the same thing. Not only that: if I remember well, he thinks that the Pillars didn't even know that Jesus was crucified.

Tomorrow I can give you more specifics in such sense.

The silence of the arch-apostles doesn't mean necessarily that they had wanted to profit , against Paul, of their status of old companions of the Teacher.

It means simply that about the circumstances of crucifixion, they didn't have other information.

In addition, the Tarsiote who, during his first voyage to Jerusalem, remained 15 days with Cephas, had any possibility to ask him and his version of the execution exposed some 10 years after proves that Peter didn't tell him no sure teaching.

(Pierre Emmanuel Guillet, Réflexions sur les Origines du Christianisme, p. 125, my translation)
...

"the circumstances of crucifixion" does not mean these arch-apostles did not know Jesus was crucified.
And what does "circumstances" means: many details about the crucifixion? In that case, I agree: these details were made up later probably by the authors of the gospels.

Paul, for his agenda, was only interested by Christ crucified, regardless if he knew about what led to it (royalish welcome by some near Jerusalem, "king of the Jews", the disturbance).
1 Co 2:2 "For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."

Cordially, Bernard