The fictional Pope Peter
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-05-2015, 12:27 AM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(23-05-2015 10:57 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(23-05-2015 10:36 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "do you think that they may have passed around letters denouncing him or his teachings? I know that the letters of John and James may have not been authored by them per se but the more I read the different texts of these passages, the more it looks like your case is even more interesting."

I strongly suspect James and Yeshua's genuine followers hated Paul with a passion. He was the enemy. He was a heretic. He was allied to the Gentile world, and Gentiles had murdered John the Baptist and Yeshua. Paul's "kingdom of God" was not theirs. Paul's Messiah ( his Christ ) was not their Messiah. Paul undermined the central tenets of Judaism. He downplayed the importance of the Temple. He reckoned Gentiles were just as special as Jews, and Jews likes to think they were the worlds most favoured people. He didn't think circumcision was important. He said that a kosher diet was unnecessary.

Did they pass around letters badmouthing Paul? It is possible, that Don't forget Jerusalem was a dangerous place if you were anti-Roman. They wouldn't want that sort of literature falling into the wrong hands.

Thanks for realising that my case may have some merit.


Biblegateway is great for seeing different translations for the scriptures. I like to see different translations because I feel that they write different "versions" to suit different denominations' theology and the verbage is different and that can, in turn, paint a very different picture of a situation.

Back on topic.
I was familiar with that Gal passage but I never thought about it in that sense. My wife has a life application bible (which has TONS of BS notes in it but I won't get into now) and they say of Gal 2:4:

"These false brothers were most likely from a party of the Pharisees (Acts 15:5). These were the strictest religious leaders Judaism, some of whom had been converted. We don't know if these were representatives of well-meaning converts or of those trying to pervert Christianity. Most commentators agree that neither Peter or James had any part of this conspiracy"

That commentary never sat well with me but I never could quite put my finger on it. I saw that Paul took a swipe at them by saying their opinions mattered not to him. As you pointed out that if Paul's Christos was James' brother, then why did he not care of his opinion (or John's or Peter's for that matter)? They only were there when jesus was alive and knew him personally (according to the story anyway) and Paul simply had "revelation." Facepalm I never thought of it from the angle that Paul was actually talking about them. That makes so much more sense that he was talking about the Nazarenes. I really never understood why they made that special note at the end about Peter and James, (it always seemed out of place) but it makes a hell of a lot more sense now. It also makes sense that Acts 15:5 may have been an attempt to place the blame for contradiction theology elsewhere. Like a bit of biblical damage control.

"It also makes sense that Acts 15:5 may have been an attempt to place the blame for contradiction theology elsewhere."

Agreed. Here is the passage....
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. (Acts 15;5 KJV)

The author of Acts could not admit that the genuine followers of Jesus would have insisted on circumcision and keeping the law of Moses, so he made out that some Pharisees were conveniently hanging around and had become "believers." It's really rather pathetic.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2015, 07:41 AM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(24-05-2015 12:18 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(23-05-2015 10:36 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  *sigh* if only I had a Delorian..... Sadcryface2

"Delorian" Huh
Damn.... Thought I was going to learn another new word, but my computer can't help... Please fill me in

The vehicle used as a time machine in the "Back to the Future" movies was a Delorean.

(at least I can contribute something to this thread rather than just sit on the sidelines and learn!)

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
24-05-2015, 07:51 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(24-05-2015 12:18 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(23-05-2015 10:36 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  *sigh* if only I had a Delorian..... Sadcryface2

"Delorian" Huh
Damn.... Thought I was going to learn another new word, but my computer can't help... Please fill me in

Damn, Mark. What kind of hole did you live in during the 90's

[Image: back-to-the-future.jpg]

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2015, 08:19 PM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2015 08:39 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
My brother-in-law has a DeLorian. Confused

So today in the Christian calendar is Whitsunday, (or the feast of Pentecost).
They read a passage from the Gospel of John that says about the new cult organization (a sub-sect in Judaism), "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained". Really ? There is no way in hell that was written anytime even CLOSE to the 1st Century. It reflects a MUCH MUCH later developed theology, an intact developed church organization, a change in who gets to forgive what, power that NO JEW EVER would even think about claiming, AND, the idea that a human could "retain sins" is absent in the entire OT.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
24-05-2015, 08:33 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(24-05-2015 12:18 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(23-05-2015 10:36 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  *sigh* if only I had a Delorian..... Sadcryface2

"Delorian" Huh
Damn.... Thought I was going to learn another new word, but my computer can't help... Please fill me in

*DeLorean


[Image: back-to-the-future-delorean-time-machine...;amp;h=335]

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2015, 08:36 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
Why not? They invented everything else.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2015, 09:16 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
There are some interesting concepts in here.....as well as more throwing shit on the wall to see if it sticks.

http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/mediev...tmlhttp://

Quote:The doctrinal tradition of Peter’s importance to Rome can be traced back to the third century at the earliest. It should be noted that the ‘historical’ evidence for this tradition is tenuous at best and more akin to legend that fact. There is little to no information on the life of Peter in the New Testament and none from non-Christian writers. What is known is that Peter was one of the oldest of Christ’s disciples and that he and James, brother of Jesus, led the ‘council of twelve’ of the community in Jerusalem.

I would dispute the section in green as simply more of the legend that was dismissed a sentence earlier.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2015, 11:14 PM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(23-05-2015 10:57 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(23-05-2015 10:36 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "do you think that they may have passed around letters denouncing him or his teachings? I know that the letters of John and James may have not been authored by them per se but the more I read the different texts of these passages, the more it looks like your case is even more interesting."

I strongly suspect James and Yeshua's genuine followers hated Paul with a passion. He was the enemy. He was a heretic. He was allied to the Gentile world, and Gentiles had murdered John the Baptist and Yeshua. Paul's "kingdom of God" was not theirs. Paul's Messiah ( his Christ ) was not their Messiah. Paul undermined the central tenets of Judaism. He downplayed the importance of the Temple. He reckoned Gentiles were just as special as Jews, and Jews likes to think they were the worlds most favoured people. He didn't think circumcision was important. He said that a kosher diet was unnecessary.

Did they pass around letters badmouthing Paul? It is possible, that Don't forget Jerusalem was a dangerous place if you were anti-Roman. They wouldn't want that sort of literature falling into the wrong hands.

Thanks for realising that my case may have some merit.


Biblegateway is great for seeing different translations for the scriptures. I like to see different translations because I feel that they write different "versions" to suit different denominations' theology and the verbage is different and that can, in turn, paint a very different picture of a situation.

Back on topic.
I was familiar with that Gal passage but I never thought about it in that sense. My wife has a life application bible (which has TONS of BS notes in it but I won't get into now) and they say of Gal 2:4:

"These false brothers were most likely from a party of the Pharisees (Acts 15:5). These were the strictest religious leaders Judaism, some of whom had been converted. We don't know if these were representatives of well-meaning converts or of those trying to pervert Christianity. Most commentators agree that neither Peter or James had any part of this conspiracy"

That commentary never sat well with me but I never could quite put my finger on it. I saw that Paul took a swipe at them by saying their opinions mattered not to him. As you pointed out that if Paul's Christos was James' brother, then why did he not care of his opinion (or John's or Peter's for that matter)? They only were there when jesus was alive and knew him personally (according to the story anyway) and Paul simply had "revelation." Facepalm I never thought of it from the angle that Paul was actually talking about them. That makes so much more sense that he was talking about the Nazarenes. I really never understood why they made that special note at the end about Peter and James, (it always seemed out of place) but it makes a hell of a lot more sense now. It also makes sense that Acts 15:5 may have been an attempt to place the blame for contradiction theology elsewhere. Like a bit of biblical damage control.

This is a footnote from the NAB (Catholic Bible) from Gal 2:4. While similar in nature to what you found, I noticed that much of the footnote info in the NAB refer more to how the textual criticism used, some background and alternative renderings of the text found in other sources.

2:4 (e) False brothers: Jewish Christians who took the position that Gentile Christians must first become Jews through circumcision and observance of the Mosaic law in order to become Christians; cf. Acts 15:1.

This footnote still comes from the working assumption that the group is composed of Christians and all of the disciples are Christians and not members of a Jewish sect.

For bible study in general, I like the NAB because it has the best footnotes amongst the mainstream bibles out there. Now I'm sure there is probably a "scholars study bible" out there that would have a lot more meaningful notes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2015, 01:32 AM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(24-05-2015 08:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-05-2015 12:18 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Delorian" Huh
Damn.... Thought I was going to learn another new word, but my computer can't help... Please fill me in

*DeLorean


[Image: back-to-the-future-delorean-time-machine...;amp;h=335]

oh yeah....delorean....everyone knows that....Tongue
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2015, 01:37 AM
RE: The fictional Pope Peter
(24-05-2015 11:14 PM)Plan 9 from OS Wrote:  
(23-05-2015 10:57 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Biblegateway is great for seeing different translations for the scriptures. I like to see different translations because I feel that they write different "versions" to suit different denominations' theology and the verbage is different and that can, in turn, paint a very different picture of a situation.

Back on topic.
I was familiar with that Gal passage but I never thought about it in that sense. My wife has a life application bible (which has TONS of BS notes in it but I won't get into now) and they say of Gal 2:4:

"These false brothers were most likely from a party of the Pharisees (Acts 15:5). These were the strictest religious leaders Judaism, some of whom had been converted. We don't know if these were representatives of well-meaning converts or of those trying to pervert Christianity. Most commentators agree that neither Peter or James had any part of this conspiracy"

That commentary never sat well with me but I never could quite put my finger on it. I saw that Paul took a swipe at them by saying their opinions mattered not to him. As you pointed out that if Paul's Christos was James' brother, then why did he not care of his opinion (or John's or Peter's for that matter)? They only were there when jesus was alive and knew him personally (according to the story anyway) and Paul simply had "revelation." Facepalm I never thought of it from the angle that Paul was actually talking about them. That makes so much more sense that he was talking about the Nazarenes. I really never understood why they made that special note at the end about Peter and James, (it always seemed out of place) but it makes a hell of a lot more sense now. It also makes sense that Acts 15:5 may have been an attempt to place the blame for contradiction theology elsewhere. Like a bit of biblical damage control.

This is a footnote from the NAB (Catholic Bible) from Gal 2:4. While similar in nature to what you found, I noticed that much of the footnote info in the NAB refer more to how the textual criticism used, some background and alternative renderings of the text found in other sources.

2:4 (e) False brothers: Jewish Christians who took the position that Gentile Christians must first become Jews through circumcision and observance of the Mosaic law in order to become Christians; cf. Acts 15:1.

This footnote still comes from the working assumption that the group is composed of Christians and all of the disciples are Christians and not members of a Jewish sect.

For bible study in general, I like the NAB because it has the best footnotes amongst the mainstream bibles out there. Now I'm sure there is probably a "scholars study bible" out there that would have a lot more meaningful notes.

"This footnote still comes from the working assumption that the group is composed
of Christians and all of the disciples are Christians and not members of a Jewish sect."


YES. AGREED.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: