Paul reshaping the church

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Paul and Timothy were going among the Jews and part of the meet and great ritual was for the guys to whip out their dicks and show that they were circumcised to that they could hobnob with the local Jews.  So Paul had to do some slicing on Timothy in order for them to get into the clique. After sucking on Timothy's bloody penis Paul said to hell with that and he dropped circumcision requirement.  It was a big break with the Jewish faction but he didn't give a damn.

FWIW, I'm adding you to my ignore list.

That's nice. You know why cardinals wear red rodes? SO that when they give blow jobs to bloody dicks the blood isn't as noticeable on their robes.

[Aractus]

I haven't read Against Heresies in a few years, but my understanding is that Irenaeus rejects the Gnostic texts because, unlike the traditional texts, they were neither ancient nor universally revered. He makes the claim that there was a universal faith and that it was held by churches all over the known world--churches that had little contact with one another due to the great distance between them (a point he emphasized, if I remember correctly). The Gnostics, on the other hand, were isolated groups that sprang up at random with their own peculiar texts.

He rejected them because they were different to the version of Christianity that he belonged to. He had no way of knowing or proving which of the Gnostic texts were written in the first century, and which had been written later - just as he failed to recognise texts that ended up in the New Testament that didn't belong (1-2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter). It's simply what he believed an an outsider to their versions of second century Christianity.

All meat has blood in it, so that's a bit vague. Most commentaries focus on dishes which are primarily or obviously blood-laden...like blood pudding, for example. Beyond this, I will concede that Paul chafed against the legalistic rituals of the Old Covenant, but I also think we can agree that he had a temper and tended to speak his mind a little too freely on occasion. Maybe this was one of those moments.

I have to say (as a Catholic) that Peter did have the authority to establish doctrine by virtue of his position as the "vicar of Christ" (cf. Mt. 16:18-19). His decision with regard to the election of Matthew and the baptism of the household of Cornelius are two such examples. I also think that the Council ratified Peter's decision; it did not make the decision. We can discuss my reasoning if you're interested.

Your explanation is that they were not to eat Black Pudding? I think it's clear they're affirming the command given in Leviticus 17:13 to drain blood from the animal before it is eaten.

As for you're argument that Peter made the decision - that's not at all what Acts 15 says. It says in no uncertain terms that James makes the final decision: Acts 15:19 "Therefore I conclude ..." The focus of Acts 15 is not on Peter at all. He's mentioned and he speaks, but he isn't central to the proceedings. In any case, the letters of Paul prove that he was much more important than Peter at that time, for the branch of Christianity he belonged to. I'm not saying Peter wasn't important, but his branch of Christianity didn't survive, whereas Paul's did.

if Paul was going to ignore the Council, why bother going to Jerusalem in the first place?

Because he wanted to convince the other leaders to do as he was doing.

The OT prophets had a limited vision of how their prophecies would be fulfilled; the later prophets had more clarity about the Messiah than the earlier ones, for example. The Israelites did not conceive of a New Covenant that would include the Gentiles.

No, clearly the prophecy was wrong. Just like almost all other prophecies in the Bible. Just like Jesus's prophecy that the Son of Man would come in the same lifetime as the disciples:

Matthew 16:28 "I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

There's no two ways about it, his prophecy was wrong. You don't test a prophecy by changing it when it doesn't happen to suit what actually happens, you test it by taking its direct claim. Now you might say "these are prophecies for later on" - the Bible explicitly says such prophecies are forbidden, and prophets are expected to prophecy future events within their own lifetimes:

Deuteronomy 18:22 whenever a prophet speaks in my name and the prediction is not fulfilled, then I have not spoken it; the prophet has presumed to speak it, so you need not fear him.”

Jeremiah 28:8-9 From earliest times, the prophets who preceded you and me invariably prophesied war, disaster, and plagues against many countries and great kingdoms. So if a prophet prophesied peace and prosperity, it was only known that the Lord truly sent him when what he prophesied came true.”

So by the Bible's own standards the prophecies I've mentioned are invalid. They didn't come to pass. To Bible explicitly tells us not to listen to people like Jeremiah and Jesus if their prophecies fail!

Perhaps you could share some of these "contradictions"?

Jesus taught to follow the Law of Moses and to play nice with the Romans (render to Caesar what is his) see Matt 5:17-18, Mark 12:17. On the other hand we have Paul saying "don't worry about the Law" and "fuck the Romans and their ways". You have Jesus doing things publicly and advocating for public preaching, but Paul and co. transform the church into a secretive organisation that meets in people's houses and doesn't have public displays of their faith - other than their anti-Roman behaviours that attract attention from authorities.

So, when someone comes along from outside these lines of Apostolic Succession and teaching strange doctrines, they were rejected because they were not teaching those things which were handed on (Gr. tradere - "tradition") of the Apostles.

None of them in the second century had direct apostolic succession. All of the important early church characters/leaders were either presumed dead by 70AD, or are not known to have lived after it. Jesus and John the Baptist. Stephen and James, Simeon, James the Just, Peter, Paul, etc.

Paul by the way, while he did know the family of Jesus, never met him himself. Neither did our other major NT author, Luke. There is also progression of mythology in the New Testament. For example, Mark and Paul don't know about the bodily resurrection of Jesus and nor do they seem to know just how evil Judas Iscariot is. True they mention celestial ascension, but that's far from a bodily resurrection. There are Old Testament characters said to have been raised to the celestial realm, it's not unique. At the same time the character of Judas Iscariot is made progressively more sinister: Paul never bothers mentioning Judas at all. Mark mentions him as an apostle, but doesn't bother portraying him as evil incarnate. Instead it simply says that he has decided to betray Jesus into the hands of the chief priests who were "delighted by this and offered him money". Then at the Last Supper Jesus mentions to his disciples that one will betray him, but he doesn't say who. In Mark, Judas never dies at the end.

In Matthew and Luke Judas is now much more sinister. Matthew claims that he solicits money from the chief priests to betray Jesus, and then at the Last supper he has the audacity to say "surely not I, Lord" to which Jesus outs him in front of the other disciples. Luke on the other hand claims that Satan entered Judas who then went to chief priests to betray Jesus and they were "delighted" as in Mark. And also as in Mark, the Last Supper goes on without any mention of who will betray him. Interestingly out of the three accounts, only Matthew claims that Judas was the one to solicit money, and only Luke claims that he was possessed by Satan. John then goes further still by claiming that Judas Iscariot is a thief. A claim the synoptic writers never bothered to make. And meanwhile, despite making numerous references to Jesus's death, Paul doesn't seem to think Judas is important enough to even mention.

So you can see clearly the progression of mythology surrounding Jesus's death and supposed resurrection. And this is just the growth/expansion of mythology from c.50AD to 90AD.

[robvalue]

I do like the shapes of churches. It's my favourite thing about Christianity. If that was down to Paul, he did one thing right.

[athrock]

[athrock]

[John V]

@OP:

Read Acts 15 again. They don't decide that it is sin for gentiles to eat meat sacrificed to idols per se, but rather they set that rule to avoid contention - Acts 15:21 - For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.

Likewise, Paul says that eating such meat isn't sinful, but also wishes that it be avoided where it would cause contention - 1 Cor 10 28 But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.” 29 “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience?

[Aractus]

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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. 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"!

[Minimalist]

They aren't MY ideas asshole.  There is a whole school of thought dedicated to it.

You should put your fucking bible down and read the Dutch Radical critics sometime.  It might help you look like less of a schmuck.

Well, I'm sure there are "whole school[s] of thought" devoted to many ideas, but when the mainstream rejects an idea, it's because the idea lacks evidence. It's true that I'm not a trained scholar. However, I don't think I'm an "a**hole" for deferring to the mainstream when it comes to an area outside of my expertise. If these "Dutch Radicals" had substantial insight, the mainstream would have no reason to roll its eyes.

You just keep telling yourself while you hide behind traditionalist bullshit.

[Minimalist]

[Drich]