Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [XTalk] Anti Petrine Mark (was James on the Road to Emmaus?)

Expand Messages
  • Brooks, George X
    Andrew Smith said: Papias had no problems in linking Mark s gospel to Peter s teaching. If this ... [End of Snip] Well I for one am not convinced that the
    Message 1 of 46 , May 10, 2000
      Andrew Smith said:
      "Papias had no problems in linking Mark's gospel to Peter's
      teaching. If this
      > has any foundation, the traditional reading of Peter's role in GMark is
      > borne out. Why is this interpretation less historically or
      > psychologically
      > plausible than the notion that GMark was anti-Petrine? (I mean this as a
      > genuine question.)"
      [End of Snip]

      Well I for one am not convinced that the Peter that we see described could
      REALLY have been changed by the "spirit of God" to promote himself as
      someone Jesus would refer to as Satan. Do modern critics "simply" believe
      Peter was a zealous believer in the power of God? Or are there modern
      critics on this list who REALLY believe Peter was changed by the power
      of God?

      It seems just as EASY to believe (if not easier) that within the
      Kingdom of God, that someone OTHER than Paul had a rivalry with Peter.
      And if Peter was Ebionite in style (as implied by other writings), then
      *most* of the orthodox communities might have tolerated a humbling
      "swipe" at Peter.

      Even today, politics and "maneuvering" are not unheard of within
      many a divine hierarchy of sincere and useful religious movements.

      George Brooks
      Tampa, FL
    • DaGoi@aol.com
      In a message dated 5/11/0 1:53:58 PM, George Brooks wrote:
      Message 46 of 46 , Jun 7, 2000
        In a message dated 5/11/0 1:53:58 PM, George Brooks wrote:

        <<"Get up quickly." And the chains fell off his hands.

        ..... he
        examined the sentries and ordered that they should be put
        to death......

        When the powers of the divine arranged for Paul's escape
        from prison, Paul REFUSES to leave. Rather than FLEE
        like someone who has LESS confidence in God, he not
        only proves his higher form of spiritual bravery, but he
        SAVES the guard from suicide, rather than put him in
        the position of being executed - - which is the direct
        result of Peter fleeing imprisonment.

        But Peter is told by an angel to leave, and Paul is not. It would not be
        very Judeo-Christian of even Paul to have disobeyed such a command - like
        Naaman not bothering with the Jordan. These differences are interesting, but
        it is Luke who narrates the angel as well as the difference. According to
        Luke, it is Paul's God who has preferred that these sentries should die.


        William Dennis Foley 2
        1 Felton St. Woburn
        Massachusetts 01801
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.