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.

[brewer]

Why does this seem so familiar?

[Minimalist]

Why does this seem so familiar?

[Aractus]

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).

Well they don't have to agree. Read One God One Lord by Larry Hurtado . It's considered an essential textbook by the majority of Biblical Colleges today, Hurtado is considered an expert, and it says first century Judaism was highly malleable - and by extension early Christianity. A view shared by many other scholars such as Bart Ehrman.

The evidence you're presenting suffers from clear selection-bias. You want to reject all the Gnostic texts because they were written outside the first century. That's the claim and the reasoning behind why Orthodox/Catholics/Protestants reject their validity about what they have to say about first century events. Therefore, if those can't be considered, neither can second century documents by church fathers that discuss first-century events. Without that you have zero evidence of who the head of the church was from 50AD onwards. Against Heresies is written more than a century after Peter and Paul died.

All branches of Christianity that existed in the second century, whether Gnostic or Orthodox, claimed apostolic succession.

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?

This is what happens when you try to put things together that don't belong together. Firstly, we discount anything Acts has to say about the event as it's hearsay. We have Paul's version and that's a first-hand account. He says he received a revelation about Jesus in Galatians, and never expands upon it. Ever. In Corinthians you have an early Christian creed taught to Paul by other believers. All he's doing is reciting it in his letter, that's not evidence that he met Jesus, or that he had a vision of him. It's no different to recounting the Nicene Creed.

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.

It's what RISEN meant. Mark doesn't mention resurrection, nor does Paul.

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?

Again, think critically. He doesn't know about Judas because it's not important. It's barely even worth a short mention by Mark. It's only when Matthew and Luke are written later that Judas becomes an important character. His character grew overtime. Sure, he was one of the disciples. But beyond that I'm not willing to even agree that he betrayed Jesus since the evidence for it is so wafer-thin. He might have handed Jesus over for other reasons that later on become perceived as betrayal.

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.

Like I said, he says he was raised. And actually, as I pointed out above, that's just a creed he's recited. The fact is he doesn't say he was resurrected, and returned to earth in bodily form to go about meeting people. Yes they believed he was raised - it didn't require any immediate evidence. In fact, what probably happened after Jesus died and was placed in Joseph's tomb is that Joseph of Arimathea handed the body over to Jesus's parents and they reburied it in a grave and some years later put it in their ossuary. Not only is this a logical explanation, but it's the most likely explanation as well since Joseph's tomb was clearly a temporary measure.

Meanwhile they don't tell the disciples because they don't want anything to do with them, and the disciples go and find an empty tomb up to 12 hours or so after the body was moved and then conclude that Jesus was risen.

That's fine. But they didn't have any concept of the resurrection until much much later. The earliest possible date for Matthew/Luke is 60AD - that's 30 years since he died. Until then there's no evidence they had a concept of resurrection. And most scholars think that Matthew & Luke were written around 75AD, which is more like 45 years after he died. In either case there's plenty of time for the mythology surrounding his death to expand, and the belief that he was risen to the celestial realm grows into the belief that he was "resurrected" and returned to earth to appear to his disciples before being risen to the celestial realm.

[athrock]

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).

Well they don't have to agree. Read One God One Lord by Larry Hurtado . It's considered an essential textbook by the majority of Biblical Colleges today, Hurtado is considered an expert, and it says first century Judaism was highly malleable - and by extension early Christianity. A view shared by many other scholars such as Bart Ehrman.

The evidence you're presenting suffers from clear selection-bias. You want to reject all the Gnostic texts because they were written outside the first century. That's the claim and the reasoning behind why Orthodox/Catholics/Protestants reject their validity about what they have to say about first century events. Therefore, if those can't be considered, neither can second century documents by church fathers that discuss first-century events. Without that you have zero evidence of who the head of the church was from 50AD onwards. Against Heresies is written more than a century after Peter and Paul died.

Of course I'm guilty of selection bias...because the Early Church was. If someone could not prove his apostolic succession, he was not considered a legitimate leader in the Church. And the same went for early writings, also.

This is NOT a problem. Atheists SCREAM that the gospels were written "late" and therefore are untrustworthy. So, you'll forgive me if I hold the gnostic gospels to the same (or higher) standard when it comes to insisting on early documents only.

All branches of Christianity that existed in the second century, whether Gnostic or Orthodox, claimed apostolic succession.

Indeed. Augustine noted the problem when he wrote, "...the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

[athrock]

Firstly, we discount anything Acts has to say about the event as it's hearsay.

If that is true, then we must discount every historian who ever wrote a line.

Do we have any autobiographical accounts of the reign of Plato? Alexander the Great? Tiberius Caesar? No? Okay, then we can know nothing about them. Bummer.

We have Paul's version and that's a first-hand account. He says he received a revelation about Jesus in Galatians, and never expands upon it. Ever.

Right. Because during all those weeks, months and years that Paul and Luke walked the dusty roads of their missionary journeys together, there simply wasn't TIME for Paul to tell Luke what had happened in any great detail. Maybe not at all. Ever.

And we certainly have no reason whatsoever to believe that Luke ever sat through a sermon in which Paul told his audience how he had met the Lord. No, siree. Luke had no material from Paul to work with. None.

In Corinthians you have an early Christian creed taught to Paul by other believers. All he's doing is reciting it in his letter, that's not evidence that he met Jesus, or that he had a vision of him. It's no different to recounting the Nicene Creed.

Right. Paul learned that proto-creed in 1 Co 15 directly from the Apostles in Jerusalem, and he recounted in VERBATIM (apparently even the Greek syntax of that passage is different than his norm style providing additional support for the idea that he was repeating from memory) what he had received at a VERY. EARLY. DATE.

This strengthens my position...not yours.

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?

Again, think critically. He doesn't know about Judas because it's not important. It's barely even worth a short mention by Mark. It's only when Matthew and Luke are written later that Judas becomes an important character. His character grew overtime. Sure, he was one of the disciples. But beyond that I'm not willing to even agree that he betrayed Jesus since the evidence for it is so wafer-thin. He might have handed Jesus over for other reasons that later on become perceived as betrayal.

Details were added over time, but that is not unexpected. If I tell you about my honeymoon more than once, you'll get more information as I recall more and have time to recount more of them. If you hear the same account from my wife, she will emphasize different things and fill in the missing details that I omit. But that's not the same as making stuff up that never actually happened during the trip, is it?

[athrock]

oops.

[athrock]

Like I said, he says he was raised. And actually, as I pointed out above, that's just a creed he's recited. The fact is he doesn't say he was resurrected, and returned to earth in bodily form to go about meeting people. Yes they believed he was raised - it didn't require any immediate evidence. In fact, what probably happened after Jesus died and was placed in Joseph's tomb is that Joseph of Arimathea handed the body over to Jesus's parents and they reburied it in a grave and some years later put it in their ossuary. Not only is this a logical explanation, but it's the most likely explanation as well since Joseph's tomb was clearly a temporary measure.

"Returned to earth"? Jesus' body did not leave the tomb from Friday until Sunday morning.

"It didn't require any immediate evidence"??? Oh, really?

One account says that the disciples thought they saw a ghost:

Luke 24
36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”

37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.

Yeah, it looks like they required some evidence there. And what have you forgotten about Thomas?

John 21
24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Yep, Thomas required evidence, too.

Meanwhile they don't tell the disciples because they don't want anything to do with them, and the disciples go and find an empty tomb up to 12 hours or so after the body was moved and then conclude that Jesus was risen.

Moved? By whom? And what is your proof of this? Is that the story that was circulating among the Jews for the next two centuries...that unknown person(s) had moved the body? No, the Jews taught that the DISCIPLES had stolen the body.

That's fine. But they didn't have any concept of the resurrection until much much later. The earliest possible date for Matthew/Luke is 60AD - that's 30 years since he died. Until then there's no evidence they had a concept of resurrection. And most scholars think that Matthew & Luke were written around 75AD, which is more like 45 years after he died. In either case there's plenty of time for the mythology surrounding his death to expand, and the belief that he was risen to the celestial realm grows into the belief that he was "resurrected" and returned to earth to appear to his disciples before being risen to the celestial realm.

None of the gospels or the Book of Acts mention the destruction of the Temple, or the deaths of Peter and Paul. Yet, the martydoms of James and Stephen are mentioned...and they were lesser players. The conclusion that one might easily draw from this is that these books were written BEFORE AD 64...possibly as early as the mid-50's for the gospel of Mark.

[Aractus]

[Aractus]