Message

"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.

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

Postby Michael BG » Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:14 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:When these Galileans got in control of the remnant of the church of Jerusalem after the Greek dispersion, their influence was very limited because they were not Christians.


I think it is very unlikely that the Jerusalem church did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (my criteria for being a Christian).

In Galatians Paul implies that Jerusalem has a group of people who are “reputed” (Gal 2:6, 9). Included in this group are James, Cephas and John who Paul informed about the gospel he was preaching (Gal 2:2) and this group gave to Paul “the right hand of fellowship” (Gal 2:9) and in return they wanted Paul and those he coverts to remember the poor in Jerusalem. He also calls them apostles – “nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me” (Gal 1:17a). 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.

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”. 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).

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).

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. That he considered the leadership equal with other groups of Christians and himself. That he recognised that they had a special place in the movement and that he should get other churches to provide support for the Jerusalem church. And that he considered that those people converted by Peter as being the same as those he converted. It is very unlikely therefore that the Jerusalem church had a completely difference message about Jesus than Paul.
Michael BG
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Advertisements

by »

 

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

Postby Bernard Muller » Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:27 pm

to outhouse,
Bernard Muller wrote:
Yes, but after the Greek dispersion from Jerusalem.
Cordially, Bernard

Supply credible sources please


The evidence I gave you is proto-Christianity started among Hellenist Jews in Jerusalem, and we do not have any evidence it started also in other places before the Greek dispersion. After the "Greeks" dispersing all over, not only in other parts of Palestine, but also further (as to their place of origin) is the best time for variety of Christianities to begin differentiating from each other, because of the different locations.

Another evidence for the Church of Jerusalem not being started by the Aramaic speaking Galileans:
"James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles." (Hegesippus)

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
 
Posts: 2565
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm

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

Postby outhouse » Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:35 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:to outhouse,
Bernard Muller wrote:
Yes, but after the Greek dispersion from Jerusalem.
Cordially, Bernard

Supply credible sources please


The evidence I gave you is proto-Christianity started among Hellenist Jews in Jerusalem, and we do not have any evidence it started also in other places before the Greek dispersion. After the "Greeks" dispersing all over, not only in other parts of Palestine, but also further (as to their place of origin) is the best time for variety of Christianities to begin differentiating from each other, because of the different locations.

Another evidence for the Church of Jerusalem not being started by the Aramaic speaking Galileans:
"James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles." (Hegesippus)

Cordially, Bernard



Bud, please comprehend what I was asking for.

I asked for a source of this " Greek dispersion from Jerusalem. "


Please provide a source for this.
outhouse
 
Posts: 3368
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

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

Postby outhouse » Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:37 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:the Church of Jerusalem not being started by the Aramaic speaking Galileans:


Cordially, Bernard



Im not arguing that. I never have, I agree.
outhouse
 
Posts: 3368
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

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

Postby Bernard Muller » Thu Oct 08, 2015 4:21 pm

to Michael BG,
In Galatians Paul implies that Jerusalem has a group of people who are “reputed” (Gal 2:6, 9). Included in this group are James, Cephas and John who Paul informed about the gospel he was preaching (Gal 2:2) and this group gave to Paul “the right hand of fellowship” (Gal 2:9) and in return they wanted Paul and those he converts to remember the poor in Jerusalem.

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

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.

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.

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

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
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
 
Posts: 2565
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm

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

Postby Bernard Muller » Thu Oct 08, 2015 4:36 pm

to outhouse,
I asked for a source of this " Greek dispersion from Jerusalem."

I already gave it to you, from 'Acts':
http://earlywritings.com/forum/posting.php?mode=reply&f=3&t=262#pr41507

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
 
Posts: 2565
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm

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

Postby outhouse » Thu Oct 08, 2015 6:23 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:to outhouse,
I asked for a source of this " Greek dispersion from Jerusalem."

I already gave it to you, from 'Acts':
http://earlywritings.com/forum/posting.php?mode=reply&f=3&t=262#pr41507

Cordially, Bernard


So your a biblical literalist and Acts has some how become a credible academic source as written?


SIR all im asking from you is to supply a CREDIBLE source for the "Greek dispersion from Jerusalem"


What are you talking about here? When and why were Greeks dispersed form Israel?
outhouse
 
Posts: 3368
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

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

Postby outhouse » Thu Oct 08, 2015 6:29 pm

Ok so we only have Hellenist who went home after Passover with mythology and theology they found important after the martyrdom. That is not a Greek dispersion.


THERE WAS NO CENTER, and I have provided a credible source.


The Diversity of Early Christianity

Harold W. Attridge:
The Lillian Claus Professor of New Testament Yale Divinity School


The Book of Acts records or reports that there was a special event that took place at Pentecost, which would have been the next pilgrimage festival after the Passover at which Jesus died. And at that time the disciples of Jesus were gathered together in Jerusalem unsure of what their future would be, when all of a sudden the spirit took hold of them and enabled them to speak in tongues, and that speaking of tongues is understood by the author of the Book of Acts to mean speaking in all of the languages of the world. So with the power of the spirit behind them, the disciples of Jesus immediately began a missionary campaign and started bringing people into the fold, converting them to belief in Christ. And from that time forward the mission moved ahead in the rather smooth way, directed by the spirit and by all of the apostles who acted in concert with one another and agreement with one another. That's the picture that we get in Acts.

The historical reality is probably much more complex. The Christian movement probably began not from a single center but from many different centers 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. 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. 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. Those who insisted more strongly on observance of Jewish laws in the Torah competed with those who were more open to admission of gentiles without imposing the burden of the Torah on them. There were others who we meet again in the Book of Acts, who apparently stood in continuity with the activity of John the Baptist and did not know the baptism that the Pauline Christians, at least, knew. So there was much more diversity in the early stages of the Christian movement than the Book of Acts suggest....
outhouse Posts: 1618Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm
outhouse
 
Posts: 3368
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

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

Postby Bernard Muller » Thu Oct 08, 2015 7:19 pm

to outhouse,
So your a biblical literalist and Acts has some how become a credible academic source as written?

I am not a biblical literalist, you should know that. For example I do not accept the idea that the Galileans created the church of Jerusalem and were Christians, even it is said in Acts. However, on this particular point, I think the indication given by 'Acts' is valid. I explained that before already:
It would have been a lot most advantageous and ideal to declare those who went away from Israel to convert Jews & Gentiles were actually Jesus' disciples, rather than Greek-speaking non-eyewitnesses. Actually, that was what Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen and the long ending of gMark pretended: Jesus' own disciples, right after the resurrection and/or ascension, went all over the known world in order to convert Jews & Gentiles to Christianity.
Maybe you would have wanted Paul explaining that great dispersion in Galatians, but he did not. However nothing he wrote in Galatians contradict it.

What are you talking about here? When and why were Greeks dispersed form Israel?

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

SIR all im asking from you is to supply a CREDIBLE source for the "Greek dispersion from Jerusalem"

I found 'Acts' on this particular matter very believable, because against what later Christians apologists (who I just named) wanted their contemporaries to believe. 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. And that's what happened: huge discontinuity between what Jesus was & preached and what would become the various christological & theological beliefs administered by the like of Paul & others.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Thu Oct 08, 2015 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
 
Posts: 2565
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm

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

Postby Bernard Muller » Thu Oct 08, 2015 7:43 pm

to outhouse,
Ok so we only have Hellenist who went home after Passover with mythology and theology they found important after the martyrdom. That is not a Greek dispersion

Evidence, please.

THERE WAS NO CENTER, and I have provided a credible source.

So now a contemporary scholar's opinion becomes a credible source!
And I do not see any evidence in your quote of Attridge, just mention of an unevidenced probability.
By the way, this Attridge is a Catholic who believes in the Resurrection. And he has groups of Jesus' disciples in different centers having a different take on Jesus! Give me a break. That sounds like an apologist trying to explain the different views (from the disciples themselves!) on Jesus which were propagated by them and went into the NT.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
 
Posts: 2565
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm

Advertisement

by »

 

PreviousNext

Return to Christian Texts and History

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Giuseppe, JoeWallack and 51 guests