Paul reshaping the church

[athrock]

This is a common misunderstanding of the text of Acts 15, so I'm going to give you a lengthy explanation. Perhaps you will be more interested in Catholicism after reading it.  

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.

No offence but what you posted hardly counts as a critical evaluation of the evidence. We can't say for sure how much of Acts 13-28 is accurate, and how much of it isn't. It's written down c. 61-75 AD, and we also can't say whether the author was Luke and had at least some first hand knowledge of Acts 13-28, or Luke's associate and only had second-hand knowledge at best. If he's Luke's associate then it explains why he gives a completely different account of Paul's conversion to the one Paul himself gives.

You misunderstand my claim in any case. I said that Peter was the head of one branch of Christianity, Paul of another, James of another, and so on. At the council itself it was James who gave the decision. This did not indicate that he was a higher authority to the others, but indicates that he was of at least equal authority to Peter and Paul and that it had probably been decided that he should act as the head of the Council.

I think I do understand your claim, and I am illustrating why you are wrong. Peter, not Paul nor James, was the head of the universal Church, and there were not different "branches" with one eventually winning out. More on that in a moment.

Now, I just demonstrated powerfully how James conceded the doctrinal point to Peter and addressed the members of the Judaizing party who were largely residents of Jerusalem and surrounding environs. James did not pronounce the doctrine - Peter did - and James ascquiesced in his speech to his own party as recorded in Acts. I realize that you a from Protestant stock, but neither the Catholic Church nor any of the Orthodox Churches would agree with you (unless the latter did so in an attempt to weaken Peter's claim of universal supremacy...but that is for another thread).

James was the hosting Bishop since the Council was held in his diocese...and this is not much different today. Even a Governor of a State would offer comments to his own constituents when the President visits his state. And if the President addressed some issue concerning immigration or law that was particularly important to the citizens of that state, the Governor might add comments of his own spoken to the local media for consumption by the local electorate. "My fellow citizens, the President has just said blah, blah, blah...Therefore, we Norwichians should offer no further objections, etc." Okay, 'nuff said on that.

Now, back to the point about the unity of the Early Church: I realize that as a Protestant, you may not have been familiarized with the Early Church Fathers. Many Catholics aren't, either. But I'm going to have to resist the temptation to BURY under an avalanche of quotes from the ECF's regarding the unity of the Catholic Church. I'll settle for this one passage from Irenaeus which will illustrate the unity between Peter and Paul:

"3The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen from the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles. (Against Heresies 3.3.3, [A.D. 180]) 

I chose this passage because it illustrates the fact that both Peter and Paul were working in harmony to build up the Church in Rome and that they handed over the office of bishop to Linus who was succeeded by Anencletus and then by Clement of Rome. Paul mentions both Linus and Clement in his letters, so you can see that while Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, Paul was working to build up the Church there, also. They were teaching the same gospel, the same doctrines, and they were not part of competing factions within the Church.

Finally, note carefully how Cyprian of Carthage powerfully explains who can and cannot be considered part of the true Church:

"[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way" (Letters 69[75]:3 [A.D. 253]).  

Matthew 16 was fulfilled at the Transfiguration in Matthew 17. So, the rest of this is moot:

Don't be ridiculous. They see Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration, they don't see the "one like the son of many coming on the clouds of heaven" as is prophesied in Daniel and is what Jesus is referring to.

I'm sorry you disagree, but Mt. 16 was fulfilled in Mt. 17. The eschatalogical issues of Mt. 24 are another matter.

As for becoming "secretive"...well, yeah, persecutions, arrests and beheadings will tend to do that. But for all that, Aractus, Christianity still overran the mighty Roman Empire within three centuries. So, your argument is a bit weak here.

New evidence shows that the Romans faced a terrible plague caused by the Black Death bacteria. At the time, people were intensely superstitious and this gave opportunity for religions such as Christianity which claimed to be able to cure infirmity to grow and rapidly recruit new members.

Wow. What a coincidence. A plague occurs just at the very moment that God desires for His new Church to expand. Funny how often "coincidences" like that seem to just "happen", isn't it?  

Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus. Luke did not meet Jesus personally, but he had opportunity to interview many of those who had. These undoubtedly include Peter (in Rome), Mary and John (in Ephesus?) and others.

No he didn't. He had a revelation "about" Jesus on the road to Damascus, he doesn't even claim to have had a vision of Jesus - let alone "met him" (Galatians 1:15-16).

Aractus, I respect your knowledge and intellect, but you blew it here. To begin, I had a "revelation" about who I was going to marry four years before we began dating. Paul's experience was not like that. You know these verses, so your misinterpretation is shocking. Let's review:

Acts 9
As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”

5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

Now, you can call this what you want, but Paul himself says, "last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born (1 Co 15:8)." Since 1 Corinthians is not one of the books whose Pauline authorship is questioned, I think it is reasonable for us to let Paul speak for himself about whether he saw the Lord or not, don't you?

In Mark 16, Mark has an angel say, "He is risen." Why write that if Jesus was still in the tomb? You are badly mistaken here.

Risen means simply that he believed Jesus was taken to the celestial realm. He did not believe he returned back to earth from it.

Is that what resurrection meant in the context of first century Judaism, Aractus? Peter, Mark's source for this material, was nothing if not Jewish.

Paul did not write a biography of Jesus. So, why mention Judas at all?

Because he mentions specifically the "Lord's supper" and gives an account of it in Corinthians. He is not aware that it is the "Last" supper.

You know that how? Remember that Paul had been to Jerusalem not once but twice and had stayed with the apostles there for 15 days on the second occasion. Do you think it is reasonable that he might have gone to Mass with them on the two Sundays he was in town? Yeah, me, too.

And are you really going to suggest that Paul did not ask Peter, James and John for all the details about Jesus' final hours? C'mon...what else did they discuss if not these things?

He makes numerous other references to Jesus's death, but never mentions him being resurrected, never mentions Judas betraying him: even though he's happy to put the blame squarely on the Jews. For example:

1 Thessalonians 2:14-15 For you became imitators, brothers and sisters, of God’s churches in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, because you too suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they in fact did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and persecuted us severely.

See what I mean? He doesn't care one bit about Judas - he never even bothers mentioning him. This guy that according to Luke was "possessed by Satan"!

Well, duh...Judas is not the central character in the story, is he? Not even close. But what DOES Paul say?

1 Corinthians 15
Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

There it is in bold, red print, Aractus...Paul mentions that Jesus was raised on the third day. And notice that Paul emphasizes that he is following a time-honored tradition of the Pharisees by "passing on" what he himself learned from others (the apostles in Jerusalem).

So, this passage from 1 Co 15 is a proto-creed of the early Church, it reflects the truly ancient belief of the Church that Jesus was raised from the dead dated to within just a few years of the resurrection itself (thus free from embellishment), it was received directly from the eyewitnesses in Jerusalem, and it is unquestionably genuine Pauline text.