Is Peter a credible source, or End of the World nutcase?

[RileyWins]

Another thread asked what Atheists have against the Bible.

Most of the answers miss the point: the Bible was written by people who had an agenda, who were selling themselves as respresentatives of God in an End of the World Cult. The leader was Peter, and he's the source of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke. So it all comes down to his credibility - is Peter someone we should believe?

Acts 5:1 A man, Ananias by name, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, and did keep back of the price -- his wife also knowing -- and having brought a certain part, at the feet of the apostles he laid [it].

Peter said, 'Ananias, wherefore did the Adversary fill thy heart, for thee to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back of the price of the place? And having been sold, in thy authority was it not? why [is] it that thou didst put in thy heart this thing? thou didst not lie to men, but to God;'

and Ananias hearing these words, having fallen down,

>> did expire (this means he DIED) , and great fear came upon all who heard these things,

>> the younger men wound him up, and having carried forth, they buried [him]. (men in Peter's group buried Ananias outside)

About THREE HOURS LATER, that Sapphira, not knowing (that her husband had died and been buried) came in,

Peter told her, 'Tell me if for so much ye sold the place;' and she said, 'Yes, for so much.'

Peter said unto her, 'How was it agreed by you, to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? lo, the feet of those who did bury thy husband [are] at the door, and they shall carry thee forth;'

>> and she fell down presently at his feet, and expired,

(This means she died, too.)
and the young men having come in, found her dead, and having carried forth, they buried [her] by her husband;

Acts 5:11
and great fear came upon all the assembly, and upon all who heard these things.

So, what if the CSI team found these two bodies buried outside Peter's place? And when they questioned him, Peter says that God struck them dead for lying about money given to his group.

Not much reason to think anything Peter says is credible, in my opinion.

Peter ran an End of the World cult. If this letter (2 Peter) was written before Peter died in 65 AD, then it has been 1,900 years since Peter recruited people to his cult with the prediction:

2 Peter 3:10
and it will come -- the day of the Lord -- as a thief in the night, in which the heavens with a rushing noise will pass away, and the elements with burning heat be dissolved, and earth and the works in it shall be burnt up.

2 Peter 3:12
... the day of God, by which the heavens, being on fire, shall be dissolved, and the elements with burning heat shall melt;

and for new heavens and a new earth according to His promise we do wait, in which righteousness doth dwell;

So, how long do we wait? Isn't 1,900 years long enough to say he's wrong about the earth burning up in a fire hot enough to melt the elements?

 

[Jenyar]

The members of the early Christian community agreed to devote their property to the work of furthering the gospel and of assisting the poor and needy. The proceeds of the possessions they sold were placed at the disposal of the apostles (Acts 4:36,37). Ananias might have kept his property had he so chosen; but he professed agreement with the brethren in the common purpose, and had of his own accord devoted it all, as he said, to these sacred ends. Yet, he retained a part of it for his own ends, and thus lied in declaring that he had given it all.

"The offense of Ananias and Sapphira showed contempt of God, vanity and ambition in the offenders, and utter disregard of the corruption which they were bringing into the society. Such sin, committed in despite of the light which they possessed, called for a special mark of divine indignation."
(www.christiananswers.net)

 

[Jenyar]

Peter, along with all the followers of Christ, expected the second coming of Christ within their lifetimes - this is no secret, and Peter was definitely not the only one with this belief. This is stated plainly in Luke 19:11
While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.

Jesus Himself preached the message "the kingdom of heaven is near" even before He recruited the first disciples (Matt.4:17). Even before Jesus, John the Baptist preached the same thing (Matt.3:1).

Luke 32"I tell you the truth, this generation [or race] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

The Kingdom of God has already been established, and Jesus was appointed King (Christ/Messiah=the anointed one). The waiting is both over and not over yet: the King will return and claim His throne. You can almost say we are living on borrowed time. Read the parable in Luke 19 if you want to understand what it means.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by RileyWins
Another thread asked what Atheists have against the Bible. Most of the answers miss the point: ...

Thankfully we have you and your Biblical scholarship to save us.

Originally posted by RileyWins
The leader was Peter, and he's the source of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke.

Sophomoric bullpuckie! Can you suggest any serious Biblical scholarship suggesting Petrine priority?

 

[RileyWins]

Originally posted by Jenyar
The members of the early Christian community agreed to devote their property to the work of furthering the gospel and of assisting the poor and needy. The proceeds of the possessions they sold were placed at the disposal of the apostles...
(www.christiananswers.net)

_________

OK, this is an interesting place to start.

Up front, let me state, I'm not really interested in re-hashing the traditional "Christian" explanation of this passage. I think it presents some startling FACTS and that anyone who devotes a few moments of critical thinking will realize that Peter's group had some serious, serious credibility problems.

But the explanation you offer is: IF you join Peter's church, you have to agree to DONATE (not devote) your property to the "furthering of the gospel." Kind of a modern buzz word, furthering of the gospel, probably not the way THEY used it.

When the "property" involved a piece of land, the land was often sold and the Apostles (ie, Peter) took the money. WHY was it HIS money? Because Peter ran an End of the World cult and he had convinced them they wouldn't need the property after the world ended, and the best way to gain favor with God and/or the Savior who would judge them at the End of the World would be to give Peter ALL their money.

And the Book of Acts warned new members that if you didn't give Peter ALL the proceeds from the sale of YOUR land, then God would strike you dead on the spot.

Now, if you could just explain this to me, why would anyone in their right minds want to join such an organization?

 

[RileyWins]

Originally posted by Jenyar
Peter, along with all the followers of Christ, expected the second coming of Christ within their lifetimes - this is no secret, and ...is stated plainly in Luke 19:11

The Kingdom of God has already been established, and Jesus was appointed King (Christ/Messiah=the anointed one). The waiting is both over and not over yet: the King will return and claim His throne. You can almost say we are living on borrowed time. Read the parable in Luke 19 if you want to understand what it means.

________

Thanks for confirming that the early Christian Church, under Peter, started as an "END OF THE WORLD CULT." It was a movement within Judaism, an established religion, so it meets the technical definition of a "cult."

Peter "expected" the second coming of Christ within their lifetimes.... -- HOW do we know this? Because we have, in the New Testament, a record of Peter telling early recruits that "the end of all things is at hand" and "we are living in the last times."

From a rational standpoint, how much credibility should we give a man (Peter) who died before the year 70 Ad told his followers that "the return (Second Coming) of Christ will occur within your lifetimes, before you die."

He missed the deadline by 1,900 years.

So, how much credibility does Peter have?

http://unbound.biola.edu/

Let's take a look at the passage you cited, from Young's Literal at the Unbound Bible on the Biola site:

Luke 19:1 When (Jesus) passed through Jericho, (he met) a man called Zaccheus (who) was

>> a chief tax-gatherer, and

>> he was rich,

Tax-collectors appear in the Gospel story. Matthew was described as a tax collector, which meant that he was given authority by Rome to collect taxes from the Jews, and was thus hated... because such tax collectors often had to pay a certain sum to the Romans for their commission and got to keep anything over that amount.... which is how Zaccheus became a rich man.

Luke 19:3
(Zaccheus) was seeking to see Jesus... and was not able (to see over) the multitude, because in stature he was small,

Luke 19:4
he (climbed) up on a sycamore.

Luke 19:5
Jesus ...looked up, and said unto him, 'Zaccheus, having hastened, come down, for to-day in thy house it behoveth me to remain;'

Luke 19:7
they were all murmuring -- 'With a sinful man he went in to lodge!'

(So the crowd thought Zaccheus was a sinful man because he collected taxes for the Romans...)

Luke 19:8
Zaccheus said unto the Lord, 'Lo, the half of my goods, sir, I give to the poor, and if of any one anything I did take by false accusation, I give back fourfold.' And Jesus told him -- 'To-day salvation did come to this house, inasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham; for the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.'

Luke 19:11
And while they are hearing these things, having added he spake a simile, because of his being nigh to Jerusalem, and of their thinking that the reign of God is about presently to be made manifest.

So, this describes the rumor going around, that Jesus was about to enter Jerusalem, overthrow the Romans and start the "reign of God."

That did NOT happen. I hope you got that. The Messiah was the person who would restore the government of Israel and sit on the throne, and Jesus did NOT do that. So, by definition, Jesus is NOT the Messiah.


But this verse (Luke 19:11) does NOT describe the End of the World that Peter predicted in 2 Peter, where a fire hot enough to melt the elements would hit the earth.

This is the OLD version of the Messiah, the King who would restore the legitimate government of Israel.

Not the same thing at all.

 

[RileyWins]

Re: Re: Is Peter a credible source, or End of the World nutcase?

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Can you suggest any serious Biblical scholarship suggesting Petrine priority?

________

Be glad to.

http://www.cin.org/kc8-5.html

"Peter had none of Paul's educational advantages. He was no scribe who would be invited to address the synagogues. (He) probably had to make his first converts among poorer Jews in the forum or streets by private conversation or street preaching.

SAFETY OF PETER
And if the Jews pursued St. Paul from town to town, they would raise up trouble for St. Peter. Eventually it became advisable for St. Peter to retire to a safer and more retired spot. Tradition indicates the Ostrian Cemetery between the Via Nomentana and the Via Salaria as his refuge. Apparently this was the country estate of the Acilian Gens, members of which were converts (Maruchhi, Archeology, II, 385). One of this family, Priscilla, may have been introduced to St. Peter through Prisca. In any event, St. Peter would be safe among these wealthy Christians at their Ostrian Villa, just across the Via Nomentana from the Praetorian Camp.

In the year 49, Emperor Claudius told him soldiers to "expel the Jews who were constantly rioting at the instigation of Christus" (Suetonius, Life of Claudius, XXV, 4). This pagan source certainly attests that vigorous Christian evangelization was in progress in Rome before 49 A.D.

About 200 AD, an African Christian named Tertullian claimed: "There is no difference (in grace) between those whom John baptized in the Jordan and those whom Peter baptized in the Tiber" (On Baptism, 4). Again he says: "If you are near Italy, you have Rome, whence also our authority is derived close at hand. How happy is that church on which the Apostles poured forth all their teaching together with their blood; where Peter endured a passion like his Lord's..." (Prescriptions Against Heretics, 32, 36, by Tertullian).

The greater number of the converts must have been from the poorer classes, but the few wealthier converts placed their villas and cemeteries at the disposal of their brethren. Here groups of Christians could gather without exciting suspicion, for all Roman patricians received daily homage from troops of clients.

PETER RETURNS TO ROME
Probably St. Peter was back in Rome by 60 A.D., for St. Mark's Gospel was composed about that time.

>> Clement of Alexandria says:

>> "When Peter was preaching the word publicly at Rome and proclaiming the Gospel in the Spirit, his hearers, who were many, urged upon

Mark,

who had long been his follower and remembered his sayings,

to write them down and

>>> Mark did so and gave his Gospel to those who had asked for it. When Peter heard of it, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it" (Hypotyposes, cited by Eusebius, History, VI, 14).


(Suggests Peter) was content that his secretary Mark record his oral catechesis in writing.

(end of quote)

Here is the entire quote from Eusebius:

Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement.

`Marcus, my son, saluteth you' Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter publicly preached the Gospel at Rome before some of Caesar's equites, and adduced many testimonies to Christ, in order that thereby they might be able to commit to memory what was spoken by Peter, wrote entirely what is called the Gospel according to Mark.'

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 A.D.), via Eusebius


In the meantime, what is your alternative?

That John Mark wrote a Gospel without any input from Peter?

Or do you have another candidate for the author of the Gospel of Mark?

(OK, just read your post in the other thread, where you suggest that the Gospel of Mark includes other traditions, legends, etc. But that applies more to the Gospel of Matthew, which is actually the same Gospel as Mark with a lot of footnotes written into the text, and a genealogy from the OT appended at the front. Mark has 660 verses, Matthew has 1100, and over 600 of the verses are identical in both gospels.)

I'll save you some time. The author of Luke, in the first sentence, says he was not an eyewitness and took his Gospel from other written accounts.... which would seem to be primarily the Gospel of Mark.

Luke 1:1

Seeing that

>> many (suggests multiple sources, or gospels)

did take in hand to set in order a narration of the matters that have been fully assured among us, as they did deliver to us, who from the beginning became eye-witnesses, and officers of the Word, -- it seemed good also to me, having followed from the first after all things exactly,

>> to write to thee in order, (in other words, prepared a new account that placed things in chronological order)

most noble Theophilus, that thou mayest know the certainty of the things wherein thou wast instructed.

Luke 1:5
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest (starts by giving a reference in time, to days of Herod)

So, did Luke take his Gospel from accounts that can be traced back to Peter?

His opening certainly leaves that door open.





http://unbound.biola.edu/

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Thanks. I take it that your Biblical scholarship supporting Petrine priority is Clement of Alexandia via Eusebius. Then you would, of course, discount the following:

While several works of Clement have survived, many others, including his biblical Outlines (Hypotyposeis) were lost, except for passages quoted by 3rd & 4th c. writers. Eusebius of Caesarea (Eccles. Hist. 6.14.5-7) ascribed this information about the origin of the gospels to him: ...
It is hard to know how much of Eusebius' comments are to be credited directly to Clement, since he only describes Clement's position indirectly. If this passage represents the actual content of Clement's text, his views on the origin of the gospels were distinct from other early Christian writers in two respects:

• the claim that not only Matthew but Luke was written before Mark and
• the claim that Mark was written during Peter's lifetime.

- see Clement of Alexandria

While equally dismissing ...

Thus a decision cannot yet be made concerning the historical trustworthiness of this tradition, since no distinctive Petrine theology can be discerned behind the Gospel of Mark, nor does Peter play a role in it beyond that already given him in pre-Marcan tradition. No one would suppose that the figure of Peter stands behind the distinctive theology of the Gospel of Mark, if there were no Papias tradition! Nor can a recognizable connection between Pauline theology and the Gospel of Mark be determined.

- see The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings by Udo Schnelle, pg. 200

To argue that "Peter [was] the source of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke" because of an apologetic tradition traceable to the likes of Papias by the good graces of Eusebius is simply pretense.

 

[New Life]

Originally posted by RileyWins
_________

But the explanation you offer is: IF you join Peter's church, you have to agree to DONATE (not devote) your property to the "furthering of the gospel." Kind of a modern buzz word, furthering of the gospel, probably not the way THEY used it.

When the "property" involved a piece of land, the land was often sold and the Apostles (ie, Peter) took the money. WHY was it HIS money? Because Peter ran an End of the World cult and he had convinced them they wouldn't need the property after the world ended, and the best way to gain favor with God and/or the Savior who would judge them at the End of the World would be to give Peter ALL their money.

And the Book of Acts warned new members that if you didn't give Peter ALL the proceeds from the sale of YOUR land, then God would strike you dead on the spot.

Now, if you could just explain this to me, why would anyone in their right minds want to join such an organization?

I really dont think they were struck dead because they didnt give all their money to the group. I think they were struck dead because they lied about the amount of it and tried to cheat. I'm sure they would have had full, healthy lives if they had said 'hey, we sold the farm for this much and we're giving you 80% of it (or whatever amount it was)

 

[RileyWins]

Originally posted by New Life
I really dont think they were struck dead because they didnt give all their money to the group. I think they were struck dead because they lied about the amount of it and tried to cheat. I'm sure they would have had full, healthy lives if they had said 'hey, we sold the farm for this much and we're giving you 80% of it (or whatever amount it was)

_______

This is a typical Christian response.

Somehow you need to leave your Christian fantasy and come into the real world, where having two bodies buried in your yard does not mean that "they were struck dead by God because they lied and tried to cheat."

Think about it!!!

If you are donating money from the sale of land to a church, how can you CHEAT?

If there was a God, God would know how much money was involved. You couldn't lie to God - IF God if omnipoent in financial transactions.

No, the crime was lying to Peter... and for that, two people paid with their lives.

Even if the story is only a legend - and it might be - that the author of Acts (possibly Luke) heard from members of the early church, it still shows something ugly about the character of Peter.

He wanted members of his church to give ALL the proceeds from the sale of their land, and if they held anything back, Peter said God was likely to strike them dead on the spot for their sins.

What kind of person was Peter? You don't know. Really, you don't. But I'm not about to devote my life to any story that he invented about Jesus.

 

[RileyWins]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Thanks. I take it that your Biblical scholarship supporting Petrine priority is Clement of Alexandia via Eusebius...
To argue that "Peter [was] the source of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke" because of an apologetic tradition traceable to the likes of Papias by the good graces of Eusebius is simply pretense.

_______

You quoted a scholar named Udo Schnelle. I'm looking for some juicy quotes. In the meantime, at

http://home.att.net/~david.r.ross/Mark/index.html

I found the following:

There is a wide consensus among NT scholars that the Gospels under the names of Matthew and Luke are expanded revisions of Mark.... If anything, Matthew and Luke are too well-attested. The two other synoptics supplanted Mark to such an extent that Mark was rarely copied and rarely quoted during those early years. By then, there were other gospels which held an equal or even higher status in the Christian communities.

(RW: So, the re-editing of the Gospel of Mark which we know today as the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke became so popular, few churches bothered to make copies of Mark to read aloud at their services, because so much of the material was duplicated. And they liked the way Matthew identified the references to the OT, because many of their members were not Jewish.)

Eusebius, writing in the fourth-century, quotes Papias's Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, a five-book second-century work also known to Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., V xxxiii.4).

And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.
Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. III, xxxix

Papias emphasized repeatedly that Mark wrote accurately, but not sufficiently. Mark only wrote down what he had heard from Peter, and thence only what Peter remembered. Papias understood that other works were needed; in particular he pointed to the logia of Jesus as written by Saint Matthew.

Irenaeus probably followed Papias: "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter" (Adv. Haer., III i.1, x.5), and followed Justin in identifying "Mark-Peter" with a variant of our Gospel of Mark. In fact, he stated outright that Mark began with "The Gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God" and ended with the ascension at Mark 16.19. His version could not have been very different from our own.

Succeeding authors would reiterate and expand upon the Justin-Papias tradition in like manner: Origen as quoted in Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., VI, xxv); Eusebius himself (Hist. Eccl., II, xv); the Muratorian Canon; Tertullian (Contra Marc., IV, v); Jerome (De Vir. Ill., viii). With Irenaeus and Tatian, Mark had finally regained its place in the canon.

The Form of the Original Mark.
According to another quote from Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria (writing c. 175-215 CE: Koester p. 294) related a similar Gospel tradition from the "elders", adding only that Mark had composed it by popular demand (Hist. Eccl., VI, xiv). In private, Clement admitted that the text of Mark was expanded after the "official release". He described an idealized view of the redactional process:

[1, recto]As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. Thus, in sum, he prepared matters, neither grudgingly nor incautiously, in my opinion, and, dying, he left his composition to the church in [1, verso] Alexandria, where it even yet is most carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.
Clement of Alexandria, To Theodore. transl. Morton Smith

The two parts of Mark which Clement quotes must be identified with our Canonical Mark, not the version Matthew and Luke expanded. The first is "And after three days he will rise" (10:34b) and the second "And they came to Jericho" (10:46a). The former is "raised" in Matthew and Luke; the latter does not exist in those two gospels.

From Clement's comments, I gathered that the Carpocratians held a text which was even further altered, but still contained enough of the true secret Mark to prove a serious embarrassment to the Alexandrian Church
________

I'm confused by your position, but I'll just assume that there is some scholarly position out there that says it is unlikely that the theme and facts given in Mark would have come from Peter, given what they know about his thinking/character/theology. But the time lapse, where there was a re-editing after Peter died, might have obscured those traces. Thanks for the reference to Udo Schnelle, but I'm not sure his opinion is strong enough to outweight the earlier documentation.

OK, I found one oblique reference that says Schnelle takes the position that Matthew and Luke were composed before Mark and John. Hmm.... I've studied the parallels in the text, and that's a bunch of nonsense. For example, Matthew talks about synagogues:

"...there are actually further internal evidence that place Matthew much later than 70CE. Matthew's gospel refers to the Jewish place of worship as "their synagogues" (Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 10:17; 12:9; 13:54) as though he wants to distinguish Jewish synagogues from the Christian places of worship. We know that the early Jewish Christians used the synagogue as their center of worship. They were only excluded around CE90 when the Jews inserted a "test clause" in their prayers. This strongly suggests that Matthew was written after Christians no longer used the synagogue as their place of worship, i.e. after 90CE. We have narrowed down the period of composition of Matthew to around 90 to 110CE"

 

[atheroy]

'Ananias, wherefore did the Adversary fill thy heart, for thee to lie to the Holy Spirit

just wondering how ananias lied to god. god is all knowing (at least thats what all the christians tell me) so therefore trying to lie to god is folly. but somehow he succeeds here. anyome else find a flaw there?

 

[RileyWins]

Okay, I found some quotes from Udo Schnelle about the dating of Q ( p. 186):

(Note: One theory says that the editor who prepared "Matthew" used a copy of the Gospel of Mark and another written document of sayings, commonly called "Q" - and thus very little in the Gospel of Matthew could have been "written" by an eyewitness. There is nothing that proves the sayings originated by Jesus; they could have been a book of ancient sayings attributed to any other Jewish historical figure and borrowed for the Christian tradition, to make Jesus seem more literate... My theory.)

The Sayings Source was composed before the destruction of the temple, since the sayings against Jerusalem and the temple in Luke 13.34-35Q do not presuppose any military events. A more precise determination of the time of composition must remain hypothetical, but a few indications point to the period between 40 and 50 CE: (1) Bearers of the sayings tradition, which possibly extends all the way back to pre-Easter times, included both wandering preachers of the Jesus movement as well as local congregations. Thus the conditions in which the Sayings Source originated included both continuity with the beginnings and with the developing congregational structures across the region. (2) The Sayings Source presupposes persection of the young congregations by Palestinian Jews (cf. Luke 6.22-23 Q; Luke 11.49-51 Q; Luke 12.4-5 Q; 12.11-12 Q). About 50 CE Paul mentions in 1 Thess. 2.14-16 a persecution of Christians in Judea that had already taken place. The execution of James the son of Zebedee by Agrippa I (cf. Acts 12.2) occurred around 44 CE. (3) The positive references to Gentiles in Q (cf. Luke 10.13-15Q; Luke 11.29-31Q; Matt. 8.5-13 Q; Matt. 5.47 Q; Matt. 22.1-10 Q) indicate that the Gentile mission had begun, which is probably to be located in the period between 40 and 50 CE.
_______

Schnelle uses a later re-editing called "Deuteromark" to explain some of the similarities.... you know, the more I read about Schnelle's theories, the more I'm inclined I am to deposit them in the circular file.

 

[Jenyar]

RileyWins - you are doing exactly what you accuse the Christians of doing: choosing a source that fits your beliefs. By citing only that source, you claim to have found the only solution to the synoptic problem (http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/). You offhandedly reject the three source theory, not to speak of the less accepted two source theory, and seem to attribute 'Q' to Peter! Why do the gospels differ so much if they all had the same author?

I guess this part was added by someone else - or came from that generic book of sayings:
Matthew 16:23
Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

I should leave ConsequentAthiest to talk some sense into you...

Atheroy,
The church was established by God. By promising to contribute to the church and then witholding on his promise, he was essentially lying to God. The Spirit of God was with the church (after pentecost), and among them. It is possible to lie to God, but God knows the truth and exposes the lie - see my post on how it Adam and Eve also "hid" from God. Same principle. If Ananias and his wife were succesful in lying to God, their lie would not have been exposed.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by RileyWins
.... you know, the more I read about Schnelle's theories, the more I'm inclined I am to deposit them in the circular file.

No doubt. You apparently, and regularly, prefer cherry-picking "some juicy quotes" to Biblical scholarship.

Your arduous quote of David Ross is instructive. You end two sentences before the author asserts:

I am not about to accept Clement's claims at face value; as a proven liar he cannot be trusted. It is enough that he has admitted that Canonical Mark is altered and incomplete. Koester, Smith and others have already explained the additions of Mark as Gnostic apocrypha; therefore I discuss the non-Matthean and non-Lukan material in our Mark in the footnotes to the Gospel text (to follow).

Furthermore, you start a thread on the Marcan Appendix, offer some silly suggestion about where you believe the text ends, but say nothing about Ross's rather compelling argument about John 21.

You begin by noting that Ross wrote: "There is a wide consensus among NT scholars that the Gospels under the names of Matthew and Luke are expanded revisions of Mark." In fact, the preponderant view is the Two Source Hypothesis, though folks like Goodacre and Farrer make compelling arguments. In either case, neither simple Marcan Priority nor 2SH are equivalent to asserting that "Peter, [is] the source of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke."

Your arguments are sophomoric in content and disingenuous in presentation. Throw out whatever scholarship you wish.

 

[RileyWins]

Originally posted by Jenyar
RileyWins - you are doing exactly what you accuse the Christians of doing: choosing a source that fits your beliefs. By citing only that source, you claim to have found the only solution to the synoptic problem
.

_____

OK, we seem to have a small problem with the question-answer system.

As a reply to one of my posts, I was given the challenge:

"Sophomoric bullpuckie! Can you suggest any serious Biblical scholarship suggesting Petrine priority?"


So, no, I was not guilty of "choosing a source that fits my beliefs."

I was quoting examples of serious Biblical scholarship which SUGGEST Petrine priority, and ONLY such sources. And I started that by giving the complete text of two historical references to Mark being a follower of Peter who recorded his sermons.

 

[RileyWins]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
..., you start a thread on the Marcan Appendix, offer some silly suggestion about where you believe the text ends, but say nothing about Ross's rather compelling argument about John 21.
."[/i]

Your arguments are sophomoric in content and disingenuous in presentation. Throw out whatever scholarship you wish.

______

Okay, I don't know where you're coming from, but you are quoting some minor academics who have some strange ideas about the Bible, and you don't seem tuned into the larger picture.

I did not offer "a suggestion about where I believe the text ends,"I was quoting a position argued in several books by Dom Crossan, a member of Jesus Seminar among other credentials.

There's a larger point. Most of the so-called scholarship in Biblical circles was written to prove the NT's credibility, and it dances round and round the facts. I cut stright to the core, and the core proves the Gospels have no credibility.

The Gospels record the sermons given by the leader of an End of the World cult, as he tried to persuade his audiences that the End of the World was at hand, by saying that one of his friends had performed miracles and fulfilled prophecies.

The people listening to Peter and Paul might have joined his club, might have gone to sleep at night in fear that the earth was about to be destroyed by a heat hot enough to melt elements...

but we have the luxury of looking back at Peter's theology from 1,900 years later...

and we know that he was wrong when he said "the end of all things is at hand."

We KNOW it. For a FACT. The people who heard him speak couldn't have known it for a fact.

That's why we are held to higher standards than the early Church.

We know the world did not end, the Son of Man did not appear in the clouds, the Kingdom was not restored. There's a nation of Israel today, and it isn't a Kingdom. There is no king. The early Christians couldn't have known that, but we do.

So, in the interest of biblical scholarship, stop reading the Gospel of Mark with the centurion saying "Surely this was a Son of God" and ask yourself, "Was the whole thing a literary invention? Or did the early Church call on someone who heard Peter talk about his memories of meeting Jesus and hiding in the garden when Jesus was arrested? It just seems logically impossible for anyone to have written a Gospel about Jesus in the period 50 AD to 65 AD without using the sermons of Peter as a source. And since the Gospel was circulated and read among early churches, even more reason to think it conforms to what Peter told them.

And my biggest problem, the initial question, Was Peter an unbalanced individual who believed God had told him in a dream that the world was about to end? Or was he a con man using that scam?

 

[RileyWins]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
You begin by noting that Ross wrote: "There is a wide consensus among NT scholars that the Gospels under the names of Matthew and Luke are expanded revisions of Mark." In fact, the preponderant view is the Two Source Hypothesis. In either case, neither simple Marcan Priority nor 2SH are equivalent to asserting that "Peter, [is] the source of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke."

Your arguments are sophomoric in content and disingenuous in presentation. Throw out whatever scholarship you wish.

________

Actually, it IS equivalent.

Matthew had two sources in front of him, a copy of Mark and a book of sayings. Out of 1100 verses in Matthew, 600 of them are copied straight out of Mark. in the remaining 500, there's a genealogy taken out of the OT, and there are a lot of "this took place according to the word... " type of footnotes that show where Mark's text agrees with passages from the OT.

So, if you think it through,

it's pretty obvious that the Two-Source Hypothesis is basically the same thing as saying both Mark and Matthew are based on the sermons "end of the world" Peter gave to Roman Christians,

___________

Mark 13:24 (Jesus said...) 'But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars of the heaven shall be falling, and the powers that are in the heavens shall be shaken. And then they shall see the Son of Man coming in clouds with much power and glory, and then he shall send his messengers, and gather together his chosen from the four winds, from the end of the earth unto the end of heaven.

Mark 13:30
Verily I say to you, that this generation may not pass away till all these things may come to pass;

>>> the heaven and the earth shall pass away,

________

ie, this is where Peter put HIS ideas about the world passing away into the mouth of Jesus...

and someone slanted the facts to make it look like the Romans on the scene thought Jesus was blameless and a "Son of God" and the Jews had it in for him. And this was at a time when the Jews were trying to force Peter's followers to stay out of their synagogues. Hmm.

It's hard to imagine why Mark would talk so much about Peter's location during the trial of Jesus if there wasn't a connection.

Mark 14:53 And they led away Jesus unto the chief priest, and...

Peter afar off did follow him, to the inside of the hall of the chief priest, and he was sitting with the officers, and warming himself near the fire.

Mark 14:66
And Peter being in the hall beneath, there doth come one of the maids of the chief priest, and having seen Peter warming himself, having looked on him, she said, 'And thou wast with Jesus of Nazareth!' and he denied, saying, 'I have not known [him], neither do I understand what thou sayest;' and he went forth without to the porch, and a cock crew. And the maid having seen him again, began to say to those standing near -- 'This is of them;'

Mark 14:70
and he was again denying. And after a little again, those standing near said to Peter, 'Truly thou art of them, for thou also art a Galilean, and thy speech is alike;' and he began to anathematize, and to swear -- 'I have not known this man of whom ye speak;' and a second time a cock crew, and Peter remembered the saying that Jesus said to him -- 'Before a cock crow twice, thou mayest deny me thrice;' and having thought thereon -- he was weeping.
______

Either this part of the story is a total fabrication, or it came from the testimonty of the maid, or it came from Peter.

Cant see any other possibilities.




http://unbound.biola.edu

 

[RileyWins]

Originally posted by Jenyar
RileyWins - you ...seem to attribute 'Q' to Peter! Why do the gospels differ so much if they all had the same author?

.

________

Why do they differ so much?

I thought they started using the term "synoptic" because they did NOT differ so much.

In what sense are they different?

Here's one possibility: the original gospel that Mark wrote ended with the Roman centurion saying "Surely this was a Son of God."

It was written on a scroll, or on pages, instead of being printed by a machine. That meant there was probably space left over at the end, that the text didn't exactly fit the length of the scroll.

Lazy people might have cut off the scroll at that point and made the whole thing shorter, but that would be a waste of space. (Carl Sagan, CONTACT)

So the copyist added new information at the end of the existing Gospel of Mark. Just wrote it in.

Maybe some of the women in the group had reported a dream that took place after jesus was buried.

http://unbound.biola.edu


Matthew 27:54
And the centurion, and those with him watching Jesus, having seen the earthquake, and the things that were done, were exceedingly afraid, saying, 'Truly this was God's Son.'

(EXISTING GOSPEL OF MARK ENDS HERE, so later copyist adds

Matthew 27:55
And there were there many women beholding from afar, who did follow Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him,

(Nothing in the previous chapters indicate that the author would be interested in the women who followed Jesus... they weren't part of the story... but what if the copyist was a woman and she wanted to add a woman's angle to the story?)

Matthew 27:56
among whom was Mary the Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and of Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Matthew 28:1
And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre,

Matthew 28:2
and lo, there came a great earthquake, for a messenger of the Lord, having come down out of heaven, having come, did roll away the stone from the door, and was sitting upon it,

(IMPORTANT POINT: in Matthew's version, the messenger is sitting upon the stone... which means he was OUTSIDE the tomb... compare this to Mark below)

Matthew 28:3
and his countenance was as lightning, and his clothing white as snow,

Matthew 28:4
and from the fear of him did the keepers shake, and they became as dead men.

Matthew 28:5
And the messenger answering said to the women, 'Fear not ye, for I have known that Jesus, who hath been crucified, ye seek;

Matthew 28:6
he is not here, for he rose, as he said; come, see the place where the Lord was lying;

Matthew 28:7
and having gone quickly, say ye to his disciples, that he rose from the dead; and lo, he doth go before you to Galilee, there ye shall see him; lo, I have told you.'

Matthew 28:8
And having gone forth quickly from the tomb, with fear and great joy, they ran to tell to his disciples;

(In this version, they tell the disciples because the messenger ordred them to, another difference)

Matthew 28:16
And the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mount where Jesus appointed them,

Matthew 28:17
and having seen him, they bowed to him, but some did waver.

Matthew 28:18
And having come near, Jesus spake to them, saying, 'Given to me was all authority in heaven and on earth; having gone, then, disciple all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all, whatever I did command you, and

(ANOTHER END OF THE WORLD REFERENCE!!)

>> lo, I am with you all the days -- till the full end of the age.'
_________

Let's compare this to the account in Mark:

Mark 16:1
And the sabbath having past, Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of James, and Salome, bought spices, that having come, they may anoint him,

Mark 16:2
and early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun, and they said among themselves, 'Who shall roll away for us the stone out of the door of the sepulchre?'

Mark 16:4
And having looked, they see that the stone hath been rolled away -- for it was very great,

(YES, A DIFFERENCE: NO EARTHQUAKE. In Mark's version, the stone has already been rolled away, and they didn't see it happen.)

Mark 16:5
and having entered into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right hand, arrayed in a long white robe, and they were amazed.

(Women didn't see him until AFTER they entered the sepulchre- how do we account for the difference?)

Mark 16:6
And he saith to them, 'Be not amazed, ye seek Jesus the Nazarene, the crucified: he did rise -- he is not here; lo, the place where they laid him!

Mark 16:7
and go, say to his disciples, and Peter, that he doth go before you to Galilee; there ye shall see him, as he said to you.'

Mark 16:8
And, having come forth quickly, they fled from the sepulchre, and trembling and amazement had seized them,

>>>> and to no one said they anything, for they were afraid.
_______

In this version, they don't tell the disciples.

Suggesting it was written by someone other than Mark, and added by a later editor, not Mark.

 

[BillClintonsCigar]

I don't know about him being a credible witness or not. He doesn't really say much in either of his letters in the New Testament; he just seems to re-write what is written in Johns letters. It does appear that he was a witness though, yet he has so little to write. He does come across as a dis-beleiver (even if only slight), in my opinion, and I imagine if he was witness on the mount, then he would have written more. However this is only opinion: just because he was witness doesn't mean he automatically gains more to write, however to follow thinking through, then if he was such a strong beleiver, then wouldn't his faith be greater, and thus he would have more to write.

Isn't a lot of what you are writing only supposition though Rileywins? (I may be wrong though, you appear to have researched the Bible more than I have.)

Suggesting it was written by someone other than Mark, and added by a later editor, not Mark.

If this is true then I think it would show in the language. Have a look at the writing style (sentence structure etc.) However the Bible has been edited slightly and re-written and such structures could have changed over time.