Posted: Jul 17, 2013 11:51 pm
willhud9 wrote:dogsgod wrote:..
So you are saying that if you were to agree with mainstream scholarship and that Galatians was indeed Pauline authorship, then therefore in Galatians, when Paul says he met Peter, that turned out to be some random bloke he, Paul, invented which the gospel authors expanded upon in the Gospels to create one giant world religion. Boy oh boy talk about stretching to reach the mark.
When Paul says he met Peter... well, Paul doesn't say that at all. He says he met Cephas, apparently the same person mentioned several times in 1 Cor and further in Gal, interpreted by later tradition as Peter.
[Note the interpolation at 2:7b-8, where Paul apparently suddenly talks of Peter where elsewhere he talks of Cephas and two distinct gospels to the circumcised and to the gentiles, despite Paul being adamant there was only one gospel for all. A number of biblical scholars have had trouble with the veracity of this passage.]
So Paul certainly acknowledges Cephas, but docile readers have no trouble with the change to Peter, because later tradition has prepared them to take it.
willhud9 wrote:The easier and more logical answer is that when Paul says he met Peter, he met Peter whom was actually a disciple of Jesus.
This is not reading what Paul says, but what posterity says.
willhud9 wrote:Therefore, Paul's understanding of say the Lord's Supper, found in Corinthians comes straight from Peter,
Now you are just making things up. I see no active thought in such an analysis at all. It's pure surrender.
willhud9 wrote:which the author of Luke quotes verbatim from Corinthians and modern historians are in general agreement that Corinthians pre-dates Luke.
You should attempt to justify this assertion through a philological analysis rather than through anally transmitted channels.
willhud9 wrote:Paul talked to Peter for 15 days. He even stresses in the epistle that he is not lying. Due to the context of the letter, we can assume that different factions were popping up and one faction did not hold Paul to be an authority of the church and therefore his teachings moot.
Talking of "the church" here is pure anachronism.
willhud9 wrote:But this is easily gleamed from a simple reading of the text. I have no idea why you would wish to go through loops and hoops of sketchy information to make a case.
All you've demonstrated is that you are not interested in what the text actually says. Instead, you manipulate the text with plainly later ideas. Not much hope here for an understanding of Paul.
willhud9 wrote:The reason Paul doesn't mention the life of Jesus abundantly is for several reasons:
All of which is facile conjecture. When you don't know shit, making things up is no remedy.