Here is what I had in mind for Stewart, who has written an excellent essay on JPI recently. Your own foray into Thomas Kuhn and Robin Collingwood was the motivational force, along with Stewart's dogmatic remarks from the church theocracy.
"From outside, cosmic thoughts work into us, from inside, humanity's will works outward. Humanity's will and cosmic thought cross in this crossing point, just as the objective and the subjective element once crossed in the breath. We must learn to feel how our will works through our eyes and how the activity of the senses delicately mingles with the passivity, bringing about the crossing of cosmic thoughts and humanity's will. We must develop this new Yoga will. Then something will be imparted to us that is of like nature to that which was imparted to human beings in the breathing process three millennia ago. Our comprehension must become much more soul-like, much more spiritual.
Goethe's world conception strove in this direction. Goethe endeavored to recognize the pure phenomenon, which he called the primal phenomenon, by arranging the phenomena which work upon man in the external world, without the interference of the Luciferic thought which stems from the head of man himself; this thought was only to serve in the arranging of the phenomena. Goethe did not strive for the law of nature, but for the primal phenomenon; this is what is significant with him. If, however, we arrive at this pure phenomenon, this primal phenomenon, we have something in the outer world which makes it possible for us to sense the unfolding of our will in the perception of the outer world, and then we shall lift ourselves to something objective-subjective, as it still was contained, for instance, in the ancient Hebrew doctrine. We must learn not merely to speak of the contrast between the material and the spiritual, but we must recognize the interplay of the material and the spiritual in a unity precisely in sense perception. If we no longer look at nature merely materially and, further, if we do not “think into it” a soul element, as Gustave Theodore Fechner did, then something will arise which will signify for us what the Yahve culture signified for mankind three millennia ago. If we learn, in nature, to receive the soul element together with sense perception, then we shall have the Christ relationship to outer nature. This Christ relationship to outer nature will be something like a kind of spiritual breathing process.
We shall be aided by realizing more and more, with our sound common sense, that pre-existence lies at the basis of our soul existence. We must supplement the purely egotistical conception of post-existence, which springs merely from our longing to exist after death, by the knowledge of the pre-existence of the soul. We must again rise to the conception of the real eternity of the soul. This is what may be called Michael culture. If we move through the world with the consciousness that with every look we direct outward, with every tone we hear, something spiritual, something of the nature of the soul element stream out into the world, we have gained the consciousness which mankind needs for the future."
While Protestants tend to identify Jesus as the Rock, and Catholics tend to identify Peter as the Rock, I have come to suspect that The Rock itself is a dodecahedron - the College of apostles itself and not a particular one. Which would really suggest that there is one church and 12 facets of it, one of them being Rome, being prominent and with a tendency to want to know all of the details as their patron saint Peter did. The apostles undoubtedly did not always get along as evidenced by Paul's ritual humiliation in Jerusalem under Peter's authority. But if the idea of primacy work to be completely, all have claims, even ones plucked from the fire like Saul
Yes, very interesting. I am intrigued by this notion:
"The apostles undoubtedly did not always get along as evidenced by Paul's ritual humiliation in Jerusalem under Peter's authority."
Where does this come from? It was James the Less that led the Jerusalem church in its early years. Peter (Simon) simply told Mary to tell James that he had been loosed. Acts 12.
Book of Acts, where Paul is summoned to Jerusalem for him pushing anti-circumcision and abandoning all Jewish laws. Peter was part of the circumcision group. But this passage is a specific Jewish ritual process. Peter and James shared authority in Jerusalem early on, if memory serves, who knows how well that went. Or if my memory serves.
For Paul to submit to a ritual vow is a major concession of authority, since he'd almost entirely abandoned Jewish customs. This isn't my idea, but the ritual process of submitting to something like a Nazarite vow, and for someone opposing Jewish customs is pretty severe. As Paul had Timothy circumcised "for the Jews" he didn't think any of it was necessary anymore, but many of the Apostles did.
Act 18:18 "So Paul still remained a good while. Then he took leave of the brethren and sailed for Syria, and Priscilla and Aquila were with him. He had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he had taken a vow.'
This is all that Peter says, ever, after his miraculous escape from the jail of Herod Agrippa I in Acts 12. In chapter 15 at the Council in Jerusalem, Peter says:
“Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”
Thereafter, he left it to James to decide, and was never heard from again.
Yes, I'm not contesting that is the last in the NT, but there's a lot of tradition outside that text that fleshes out his role. The main point is Paul's submission to the very protocols he was preaching against. Not disagreeing with anything you've quoted
I maintain that Peter was not part of any circumcision group. He had the vision of the sheet drawn down with the animals, and heard the words, "kill and eat", which was the sign to allow the Gentiles to enter the fold. This vision he took to Jerusalem well before the council described in chapter 15. It is, indeed, the tradition that has formed around the church about Peter that needs to be criticized. Remember, Christianity didn't become romanized until Constantine, c. 325 AD. It was Paul's mission to bring the "good news" to the Gentiles in the surrounding territories. He eventually dropped the notion of circumcision.
Hi Max,
Here is what I had in mind for Stewart, who has written an excellent essay on JPI recently. Your own foray into Thomas Kuhn and Robin Collingwood was the motivational force, along with Stewart's dogmatic remarks from the church theocracy.
"From outside, cosmic thoughts work into us, from inside, humanity's will works outward. Humanity's will and cosmic thought cross in this crossing point, just as the objective and the subjective element once crossed in the breath. We must learn to feel how our will works through our eyes and how the activity of the senses delicately mingles with the passivity, bringing about the crossing of cosmic thoughts and humanity's will. We must develop this new Yoga will. Then something will be imparted to us that is of like nature to that which was imparted to human beings in the breathing process three millennia ago. Our comprehension must become much more soul-like, much more spiritual.
Goethe's world conception strove in this direction. Goethe endeavored to recognize the pure phenomenon, which he called the primal phenomenon, by arranging the phenomena which work upon man in the external world, without the interference of the Luciferic thought which stems from the head of man himself; this thought was only to serve in the arranging of the phenomena. Goethe did not strive for the law of nature, but for the primal phenomenon; this is what is significant with him. If, however, we arrive at this pure phenomenon, this primal phenomenon, we have something in the outer world which makes it possible for us to sense the unfolding of our will in the perception of the outer world, and then we shall lift ourselves to something objective-subjective, as it still was contained, for instance, in the ancient Hebrew doctrine. We must learn not merely to speak of the contrast between the material and the spiritual, but we must recognize the interplay of the material and the spiritual in a unity precisely in sense perception. If we no longer look at nature merely materially and, further, if we do not “think into it” a soul element, as Gustave Theodore Fechner did, then something will arise which will signify for us what the Yahve culture signified for mankind three millennia ago. If we learn, in nature, to receive the soul element together with sense perception, then we shall have the Christ relationship to outer nature. This Christ relationship to outer nature will be something like a kind of spiritual breathing process.
We shall be aided by realizing more and more, with our sound common sense, that pre-existence lies at the basis of our soul existence. We must supplement the purely egotistical conception of post-existence, which springs merely from our longing to exist after death, by the knowledge of the pre-existence of the soul. We must again rise to the conception of the real eternity of the soul. This is what may be called Michael culture. If we move through the world with the consciousness that with every look we direct outward, with every tone we hear, something spiritual, something of the nature of the soul element stream out into the world, we have gained the consciousness which mankind needs for the future."
GA 194, November 30, 1919
This story has given me a beautiful spark for the day
While Protestants tend to identify Jesus as the Rock, and Catholics tend to identify Peter as the Rock, I have come to suspect that The Rock itself is a dodecahedron - the College of apostles itself and not a particular one. Which would really suggest that there is one church and 12 facets of it, one of them being Rome, being prominent and with a tendency to want to know all of the details as their patron saint Peter did. The apostles undoubtedly did not always get along as evidenced by Paul's ritual humiliation in Jerusalem under Peter's authority. But if the idea of primacy work to be completely, all have claims, even ones plucked from the fire like Saul
interesting! thank you, Stewart
Yes, very interesting. I am intrigued by this notion:
"The apostles undoubtedly did not always get along as evidenced by Paul's ritual humiliation in Jerusalem under Peter's authority."
Where does this come from? It was James the Less that led the Jerusalem church in its early years. Peter (Simon) simply told Mary to tell James that he had been loosed. Acts 12.
Book of Acts, where Paul is summoned to Jerusalem for him pushing anti-circumcision and abandoning all Jewish laws. Peter was part of the circumcision group. But this passage is a specific Jewish ritual process. Peter and James shared authority in Jerusalem early on, if memory serves, who knows how well that went. Or if my memory serves.
For Paul to submit to a ritual vow is a major concession of authority, since he'd almost entirely abandoned Jewish customs. This isn't my idea, but the ritual process of submitting to something like a Nazarite vow, and for someone opposing Jewish customs is pretty severe. As Paul had Timothy circumcised "for the Jews" he didn't think any of it was necessary anymore, but many of the Apostles did.
Act 18:18 "So Paul still remained a good while. Then he took leave of the brethren and sailed for Syria, and Priscilla and Aquila were with him. He had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he had taken a vow.'
This is all that Peter says, ever, after his miraculous escape from the jail of Herod Agrippa I in Acts 12. In chapter 15 at the Council in Jerusalem, Peter says:
“Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”
Thereafter, he left it to James to decide, and was never heard from again.
Yes, I'm not contesting that is the last in the NT, but there's a lot of tradition outside that text that fleshes out his role. The main point is Paul's submission to the very protocols he was preaching against. Not disagreeing with anything you've quoted
I maintain that Peter was not part of any circumcision group. He had the vision of the sheet drawn down with the animals, and heard the words, "kill and eat", which was the sign to allow the Gentiles to enter the fold. This vision he took to Jerusalem well before the council described in chapter 15. It is, indeed, the tradition that has formed around the church about Peter that needs to be criticized. Remember, Christianity didn't become romanized until Constantine, c. 325 AD. It was Paul's mission to bring the "good news" to the Gentiles in the surrounding territories. He eventually dropped the notion of circumcision.
Yes he did eventually drop it, but not after Paul rebuked him and Peter also had that vision. In agreement here https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%202%3A11-21&version=RSVCE