Friday, March 2, 2018

... on Galatians 2, on whom St Paul withstood to his face

Did St. Paul Really Rebuke St. Peter In Galatians 2? | Ajoutée le 11 févr. 2018

My comments
which are initially sceptical...

Looking up - Barnabas had been mentioned, then verse 11 "when Kephas came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed"

Him usually refers to one mentioned before, but here we have two people mentioned before, you mean it was Barnabas?

Here is bishop Challoner's solution:

"I withstood": The fault that is here noted in the conduct of St. Peter, was only a certain imprudence, in withdrawing himself from the table of the Gentiles, for fear of giving offence to the Jewish converts; but this, in such circumstances, when his so doing might be of ill consequence to the Gentiles, who might be induced thereby to think themselves obliged to conform to the Jewish way of living, to the prejudice of their Christian liberty. Neither was St. Paul's reprehending him any argument against his supremacy; for in such cases an inferior may, and sometimes ought, with respect, to admonish his superior.

I know St Thomas agrees it was St Peter, have you any Church Father disagreeing?

Wait, ok, you mean Cephas is not Petrus, but someone else named Cephas?

So, any Church Father at least not claiming this Cephas is St Peter, when exposing the passage? [Yes, there is, see video, or read my later admissions]

17:46 It could make sense same person is first called Peter and the Cephas because of variatio sermonis. Style. As a trained Pharisee (by background) St Paul no doubt had a sense of that and as a Roman citizen he no doubt had a sense of Greek rhetoric - in which variatio sermonis plays a part.

Supposing Pope Michael is Pope, which you don't agree on, since he is against Feeneyism, but supposing he is, have I done what St Paul on your view did not do to St Peter, or have I preserved my rights and told the Pope where his rights end in this:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Correspondence with Pope Michael

Esp. since St Peter (as you quoted) told Ananias he was not obliged to evangelic poverty, it was a choice and not one to be done in a sham way.

You are aware some Churches with material apostolic succession are teaching that the restrictions in the words of St James bind to this day? Orthodox are against eating blood food. (They also call the see of Jerusalem "Meter kai Mathetes panton ton ekklesion", as you may imagine). [Discussion of Acts 15]

10:59 In other words, if I need to comment on this to a Muslim, the words of St James can be paraphrased "Peter has made a fatwa"? [context : discussion of Acts 15]

18:56 While I have for my part sometimes used the liberties of Divino Afflante Spiritu (notably to prove that Synoptics wrote before Ioudaios and St John after Ioudaios became a word for non-Christian, and that St John did note Our Lord used the word in a different way, even before Pilate He could have used Ioudaios because the majority of the nation had betrayed Him, rather than as singling out the traitors, notably to show Nimrod can have planned a three step rocket), I have also been careful to try to verify no Church Father unity opposed my interpretation.

Divino Afflante Spiritu is at least not above the Council of Trent as signed by the then ruling Popes.

I checked the three step rocket by noting Patristic disunity about "skyscraper" or "skyline" via Postilla in libros Geneseos, which I consider an early work by St Thomas. A unity about "skyscraper" type of single tower would have doomed my solution.

23:41 You know that one reason for confusion if you are right would be there being no name's day for the other Cephas.

And one reason against you would be that nothing elsewhere indicates another Cephas than Peter.

As far as anyone could see, Jesus Christ invented the name in both Aramaic and Greek - like God invented Abraham.

The Hebrew counterpart, as I have heard, would be Elitzur, actually my fourth first or given name - not mentioned in connection with St Peter himself, even if there is an OT character who is named so.

23:56 Among Galatians, obviously, there were both Judaic and Gentile Christians.

Jew had not yet become a word for non-Christian, so many Christians were of overtly Jewish (or Judaic, if you prefer) background (as in the end times, btw).

24:36 St John wrote his Gospel after Jew had already become a word for non-Christian.

This is the first use I made of the method advocated by Divino Afflante Spiritu, since it simply confirms tradition. In the days when it was written, after Apocalypse, the Judaic Christians were ashamed to show Jewish culture because that was already associated with rejection of Christ. St John's Gospel may be the last book of the NT written (other candidate being perhaps III John), and decades after Galatians.

Galatians was written before Nero died, since St Paul was martyred by Nero.

St John's Gospel was written - pace Jean Colson's thesis or rather a detail in it - by a man who was the beloved disciple and whom Domitian had failed to martyr, and exiled to Patmos. The Apocalypse was written on Patmos, before Domitian died, and the Gospel even later, when "honest Nerva" had liberated John from Patmos.

So, knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic would have been very much more available to the first audience of Galatians than to that of St John.

c. 24:50 Anyone [first] reading Galatians would only have known St Peter as Petros or Simeon?

Even supposing a very reduced knowledge of Hebrew/Aramaic compared to first audience of St Matthew, a decade earlier or more, and in Holy Land not Anatolia, there is also oral tradition, they would have picked up from an occasional mention that Petros was in Aramaic known as Cephas.

25:09 Unless he was referring to two different people, really?

It could also be St Paul, when affronting St Peter, had deliberately used the Aramaic word Kephas, simply because he was externally Judaising on that occasion.

It could even be St Paul had used Kephas as a covert hint about this and St Peter had taken the reproach while those around had missed it.

25:31 First, Greek form in St Matthew.

Presumably he used Aramaic form in Aramaic original, and then Greek form in his own Greek translation, perhaps?

Then, "readers". As we know from elsewhere the actual readers of any Epistle would be people St Paul had typically talked to (Philemon probably an exception, for reasons unique to the case) and so they would be people knowing more than just what St Paul was writing to them. So, St Paul would also have talked to the Galatian clergy before he wrote them and therefore have known if they could be relied on to identify Kephas as precisely Peter or if it would confuse them.

You are reasoning as a Sola Scriptura Protestant.

People occasionally do get to know each other by correspondence, but like you don't date someone you met on the internet without first meeting in real life in safe circumstances, early Christian clergy were also not likely to just accept an epistle from someone they had never met. There could for instance be someone they had seen in St Paul's company when he left them who brought the epistle, as this was way before Turn and Taxis. Or British Post Office.

unless otherwise informed - well, the thing is, they obviously could very well have been otherwise informed.

  • a) orally by St Paul
  • b) by the man bringing the letter, who would have known.

This brings us to the question, does tradition give room for your solution?

Trentine and Vincentian criterium, you know ... (it gives for at least a good part of Jean Colson's thesis, he did a good check-up, while he got his imprimatur in 1968, he was ordained 30 years earlier, in 1938 and was not totally unfaithful to his iusiurandum adversus modernismum).

25:55 was not St Peter

Hmmmm St Clement of Alexandria ... thank you.

Next question, is he a saint in the Catholic Church or not?

26:37 "This is very strong evidence"

No, it is evidence you are not heretical, if either Clement is a saint or the Vincentian and Trentine criterium admits Origen and Tertuallian who are not saints, but it is not very strong evidence, since Clement could simply have guessed and also since Alexandrian Church came from Alexandrian Jews (the kind who would say Jason in preference over Ieshua) and would therefore have been capable of assuming, even wrongly, Kephas would be someone else, since using an Aramaic and not Greek form of the name.

But you score a point at least by bringing up someone at least in the loose sense a Church Father.

26:49 OK, Providentissimus Deus supports your point, Roma loquuta est and so on (however it was not loquuta in direct favour of Heliocentrism, even if a phrase in historic context was likely to be taken so).

Indeed, St Jerome's words about others not believing identity with Prince of Apostles is at least as strong as St Justin's words about others not believing the Millennium was upcoming.

Two Church Fathers have therefore shown you are at least within correct limits on this one.

28:53 - you have made it as safe as I about rocketry plans at Göbekli Tepe : since Church Fathers are not united on what this means, since you have one faction saying St Peter erred and another saying they simulated, bringing up a third, even new, explanation, contradicting nothing all have in common (as you showed with Clement of Alexandria and with acknowledgement by St Jerome) is not outside Vincentian and Trentine criterium.

30:03 When Orthodox reject Purgatory, since they nevertheless accept nominally the Vincentian criterium (affirming it at Jerusalem and Iasi as much as Catholics at Trent), they do say that St Gregory the Great did believe in Purgatory, and they put it down, his being wrong, to having relied on a vision and taking it too literally - but his predecessor from the selfsame nomination of Jesus Christ also relied on a vision, for a very important point which the Orthodox are not at all likely to dispute.

33:30 The Theadelphos could also be a half brother, a son of St Joseph by his first marriage. (Protogospel attributed to him says so, it is accepted as ... fidei proxima ... by Orthodox, and probably by a lot of Uniates).

34:06 Back to Jean Colson's thesis ... "the depositum fidei is finished when the last apostle dies" ... not sure if the sepulchral miracle in Ephesus was a death or a rapture, but this would stay uncontradicted by the beloved disciple being outside the twelve, as also if (contrary to fact) it would have been St Barnabas who had written the last book?

39:22 What do you consider about this observation on the new offertory:

Creation vs. Evolution : Cain Did Not Sacrifice Wheat

Background to the sentence: Domesticated, that is cultivable, wheat is from a post-Flood mutation, from near Göbekli Tepe. - Wild wheat in a documentary I had seen would be Einkorn wheat, which can self sow and would be a nightmare to harvest, especially for an impatient man like Cain ... so he could have sacrificed some other "fruit of the earth" as that "offertory" has also been used by "inculturation" with non-wheat hosts, in the seventies.

I am not sure whether Emmer wheat, also a wild wheat, could equally be considered a possible ancestor of cultivated wheat, and if so, whether it is equally a nightmare to harvest.

46:00 In other words, the attitude of St Paul would have been to this Cephas as that of Monseigneur Lefebvre to Cardinal Tisserant (if I recall correctly) when the latter was modernist?

46:40 We know that St Peter was bishop of Antioch.

Supposing the Cephas was indeed someone else, why did not St Peter rebuke him?

50:18 Speaking of Agabus ... would you mind doing a refutation of tektonTV on "in this present concern" being, on his view, that of the famine, rather than the concern mentioned in the beginning of I Corinthians 7? I did one in writing, but as long as my blogs are not printed, your video may reach a bit further.

1:01:46 If Cephas was one of the trouble makers, and was St Peter, Acts XV could be explained as him having received the rebuke from a subordinate, according to what he already knew, and therefore been back on the right side in Acts XV - reason enough for Luke not to mention him by name, as he was already dissociated from troublemakers, if so.

One of the key problems is, how many times did St Peter see Antioch before finally leaving Jerusalem for Antioch (before then going on to Rome)? If he didn't, problem solved, Cephas would have been someone else as we see St Peter in Jerusalem - on the other hand, that would have meant, St James got his place in Jerusalem only after Acts XV, since Peter and Apostles (presumably those of the twelve still alive) would still have been there.

This is supported by 15:2, but not indisputably, since apostle also has a wider meaning.

The other option would be, the conflict arose when St Peter came to Antioch to become the first bishop there, he initially acted cowardly, a weak moment. But took his own back again after receiving the rebuke, when standing up in Jerusalem.

1:03:12 Well, the position that if St Peter was already in Antioch they still went to the Apostles in Jerusalem would only be tenable for someone saying he had no special privilege among the Apostles (one but not only position among Orthodox, other being "each diocesan bishop succeeds St Peter").

If St Peter had first caused trouble in Antioch, was the chief apostle as we rightly believe, the procedure would have been like that of Reverend de Nantes, going to accuse Pope Paul VI before the judgement of Pope Paul VI - on the other hand, if Montini had been a Pope, he would have said, he could not judge himself, therefore de Nantes would have said "then appoint judges over you for this case".

It is possible, not likely, that this is what St Peter did. The first Pope himself stood accused, he could not judge himself, he appointed the other apostles as judges over him. And obviously was acquitted by his repentance, if so (something we did not see from Montini's side, with de Nantes, though!)

1:05:33 There is always an answer ... indeed.

I saw some Novus Ordo Catholic (I haven't quite totally given up on him being actually Catholic yet) who argued against scientific accuracy on account of "they sow not and they harvest not, and yet God feeds them" by pointing to birds who die in winter.

Obviously, Christ didn't say God feeds the birds or clothes the lilies each individually perpetuating its natural life to eternity. He meant God feeds the birds and clothes the lilies until they die or wither, each in turn, but not all at the same time.

Unknown to me when watching it, there was an earlier publication than theirs:

The Shield of Faith : Did St. Paul withstand St. Peter to his Face?

It is from Wednesday, July 22, 2015 according to settings.

No comments: