APOSTLES: what good are they in terms of Christian teaching?

by Terry 14 years ago 9 Replies latest 14 years ago watchtower bible

• 

  Terry 14 years ago

  Apoστολος or apostolos=meaning one who is sent forth as a messenger.

  Jesus personally selected messengers to deliver a message.

  Did these apoστολος qualify? Were they any good at understanding? Were they competant?

  The first institution: Catholic Church, traces their authority through Apostolic succession.

  2 of the 4 Gospels are traced to Apostolic origins.

  Both the church and the Gospels+epistles are our only source of information about True Teaching.

  The Apostles's Creed was said to have been composed by the Apostles themselves!

  Judaism had an office called apostle.

  Being sent out on a special mission to tend to proselytes made one an apostle, for example.

  The chief distinction between Apostle and Disciple is one of having a SPECIAL MISSION.

  Were the specially selected messengers Jesus sent out to spread the Truth qualified?

  Jesus gave them specific instructions to Heal the Sick and Drive out Demons.

  The first person to claim special status as an Apostle to the Gentiles was a person who went by a Gentile name: Paul. (or Paulus)

  Jesus had specifically stated his mission was directed toward Jews only. , [ Mt 10:1-6 ] [ 15:22-24 ] [ Lk 22:30 ]

  Paul claimed apostleship to non-Jews.

  Paul elucidated "meaning" to the entire history of scripture. From his epistles there is extracted Theology.

  But, Paul never "met" Jesus and was not personally instructed by him.

  Paul and Peter faced off in an argument.

  Peter backed down.

  The great body of Christian doctrine did not proceed from the Jerusalem Council but from the extracted perorations of Paul's epistles to Gentiles.

  Should we be concerned that Gnosticism sprung up as a reaction to Paul's writings on the meaning of True Worship in contradistinction to the later writings of Gospels by hand-picked Apostles?

  Marcion took Paul's writings as proof the Old Testament Jehovah was Evil and the Jesus was the True benevolent God for Gentiles as well as Jews.

  Is this the intended message Jesus preached while with his hand-picked Apostles?

  The writer Papias Παπiας made it his life's work to interview eye-witnesses and Apostles while they were still alive.

  In his own words:

  I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly learned with care from the Presbyters and have carefully stored in memory, giving assurance of its truth. For I did not take pleasure as the many do in those who speak much, but in those who teach what is true, nor in those who relate foreign precepts, but in those who relate the precepts which were given by the Lord to the faith and came down from the Truth itself. And also if any follower of the Presbyters happened to come, I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains.

  These words and his writings were labeled by the Early Church fathers as heresy! They were subsequently destroyed.

  Should we be concerned about the lesser status of those who walked and spoke directly with Jesus and the elevation of Paul's writings?

  How could Paul have greater insight (having never met Jesus and hardly referring at all to any of his actual words or history) than the 12

  specially selected Apostles of Jesus?

  Link
• 

  bob1999 14 years ago

  I will make one point, without spending the time to look it up.....

  In the Old Testiment (somewhere) it says that the "Good News" would first be offered to the Jews and that they would refuse it (in large measure) and then that Good News would be offered to the rest of the world.

  Check it out and please tell me if I'm wrong.

  Peace

  Link
• 

  Band on the Run 14 years ago

  The apostles are very interesting. We think of them as princes.ambassadors of Christ. My church believes in apostolic succession. Jesus clearly could have chosen literate, public speaking giants. Throughout the Gospels, they are clueless. He chose fishermen. Jesus knew what he wanted. They can't even stay with him in the Garden of Gethsamane. Yet the abrupt turn around in ACts at Penetcost indicates a conversion response. These same men who hide in rooms, terrified of being crucified are transformed into giants. They carry the gospel to the known world. My favorite apostle has always been St. Thomas, the great doubter, who is like me. John's gospel, not written by John, comes next, followed by Paul's letters.

  During Lent at my church, we discussed what actually happened during the last days of Jesus compared to our Cecil B. Demille and Franco Zefferelli productions that merge all gosepls and legend into one dramatic whole. We have a Western/Roman mindset that makes short shrift of legend. Yet the Bible emerges in the East and all the early Church councils take place outside of Rome. The commentaries never name a Roman bishop who plays a substantial role. The heavies are all Middle Eastern. Archaeologists have documented preliterate societies. They can trace oral legends that are lengthy going down thousands of years without alteration. It boggles my mind. I hate memorization.

  When I studied New Testament formally, the one thing that stood out was that nothing was ordained. Political and social forces molded what we consider orthodoxy. Gnosticism and New Age thoughts are clearly linked. No one could definitively say one group was Christian. Paul's discussions with the Jerusalem Council show how weak that council was. It appears that other groups were deferential to Jerusalem, and particularly, to James' Jesus brother. Perhaps twin brother. I'm very curious how the cult of Peter emerged. Rome only became important much later. There is no evidence Peter left Israel.

  The Indian church (the subconctinent) believes St. Thomas founded their churches. Every apostolic tradition has its own take. We are definitely Pauline. Yet what legitimacy did Paul have? I relish the idea that God's work was not limited to the Twelve. The Witnesses always said Paul was the 12th, after Judas was evicted from glory. Yet Acts clearly names another apostle, not one well noted. My priest made the comment about canonizatoin. When they selected a canon, they issued an edict that canonization was now closed. To say that God will never proclaim his Word to humans again is very sad.

  The apostles in the gospels are so comical. They are abundantly human. One of my favorite Jesus Christ Superstars is when the apostles sing, "Thought I'd make an apostle, knew I could make it if I tried, then we would retire and write the gospels and they will all think of us when we're dead>" Parapharase. Christ's work continues. In the Anglican traditoin, apostolic succession justifies the forms of Catholcism and tradition. It is no big deal.

  Link
• 

  PSacramento 14 years ago

  Terry, there are MANY books on Heresy.

  I am currently reading a good one that is an introduction to it by Alaister McGrath.

  You should take a read of it.

  Peter ALSO preached to the Gentiles and when Paul preached, Barnabas and others were with him and he had been instructed by OTHERS and while Paul was VERY zealous, and thatis why he was chosen to spread the Gospel amonsgt the gentiles, he didn't always get things 100% right, his zeal and upbringing at times getting the better of him.

  The fact that of all the apostles, Paul was the most prolific writer and preacher is simply a testament to his zeal.

  Not all the apostles surived into old age, and not all where preachers or evangelizers of Paul magnitude.

  Macion saw things his way and depneding on which view you take, he either left the church because he didn't liek their views or he left because he didn't get the bishop role he wanted, be either way HE left and wasn't persecuted or thrown out AND he came from within the church and based his interpretations on what he had learned as a christian. He didn't come from an outside source.

  Link
• 

  Band on the Run 14 years ago

  I forgot. The idea thaat the Eleven or Twelve Apostles wrote the Aposte's Creed seems fantastic. The church did not have enough heft to impose a doctrine of such legality, formalistic formulation. Do you have a citation? People, like the gospell writers, always used an apostle's name to signal legitimacy or a particular train of thought.

  No one knew very much about Gnosticism until the cache was found during an early Islraeli war. Scholars knew some group exissted from extrapoliting Paul's letters. When hundreds of documents were found, Christianity was totally re-evaluated. There may be another such treasure trove in the desert that we haven't stumbled upon yet.

  Elaine Pagels, the noted gnostic scholar, was my teacher. She would argue that Paul's version of Christianity succeeded because its doctrinal form was easily translated to practice by many, regardless of education and status. Gnosticism, while enticing, focused on the very literate Greek Christians. Like todays' New Age, it was very much an individual's assent to secret knowledge. It enforced Roman notion of status within the congreation. Someone totally conversant with Greek philosophers would be attracted far more than fishermen and carpenters. Early Christianity trampled upn the social norms of Roman society. All were equal. Altho I still tend to think that some were more equal than others.

  In one of her later books, she examines the earliest reputations Christians were given by outsiders. Many thought cannibalism was actually occurring during Eucharist which made sense. Very ancient documents note that Christians would deliberatly stay with plague victims to help. They would nurse the ill until death. As I watch the Borgias on Showtime, it is something to see what political power did to the church. I'm also very impressed by Thomas Merton, The Wisdom of the Desert, a book of pithy sayings by very early hermits.

  Maybe it was Pentecoat. Maybe something else. But those clueless apostles led to a church that, for a while, embodied Jesus' teachings.

  Link
• 

  PSacramento 14 years ago

  The only power that the chruch had came after Constantine and even then it took awhile.

  Before that they didn't have enough power or infulence to presecute or anything of that sort.

  With power came corruption and with power came the thrist for more power.

  When Christianity became "organized", was when the first sounds of authoritive power were heard, that is when a true "governing body" came to be.

  By the time that happened there already was an "orthodoxy" in place, it cam ebe be over the centuries and the "offical state chruch" just put the "seal of approval" on it, no more, no less.

  Link
• 

  Band on the Run 14 years ago

  I've always wanted to study the Constantine conversion if we call it conversion in detail. Certainly, the Apsostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed were ordered to be developed and enforced. If Constantine had to micromanage so much, diversity must have existed for centuries. It is so crucial to what became orthodoxy and it is not readily referenced.

  I am curious as to which Bishops had the most power. Was it geographical or by virtue of their sermons, writings? Women's status before and after would be telling. I have a rough idea of the earliest Church not not the time immediately before Constantine. Did the military just comply? Were they sending Christians to the lions one day and converting the next. Constantine must have more power than his predecessors.

  My casual take is that the Church stopped being Christian in the gospel sense as it gained earthly legitimacy. I have access to eBSCO host for a short time. Maybe I will download some articles when I finish this.

  Link
• 

  Terry 14 years ago

  I personally think there are so many syncretic layers it is unsortable to trace the tangled skein of legitimacy.

  If you read what is left (in opposer's quotations) of Papias' interviews and summations you'll find

  the most outrageous nonsense being preached and believed even by the eyewitnesses.

  Indeed, the untutored and superstitious hearers were apt to embellish immediately to make the story more interesting.

  I think whatever authentic Jesus sayings made their way through untarnished were also mixed in with incredible riffs of imagination.

  If you read the writings of the Early Church fathers and the giant intellects (Augustine and Aquinas) you immediately get the impression

  these were naive and weird minds in the throes of superstition made real.

  The Apostles vs Paul is no contest.

  When did the Apostles (whose "writings" came after Paul's epistles) show any indication of awarenss of him?

  When did Paul show any awareness of them?

  It is as though the two existed in alternate literary universes.

  Later redactors seem to have tried to blend them together (ACTS/ROMANS)

  Link
• 

  wobble 14 years ago

  I wonder how Paul spent his time in Arabia that he had before his ministry really got started ? (Gal 1).

  Also there seems to be a period unexplained in the phrase in Gal 1 "after fourteen years..." . It is possible that during these periods Paul learned from those who actually knew Jesus, but if that is the case it is strange that he does not actually say so.

  It could well be that his Damascene talk with "Jesus" convinced him that he was especially blessed with insight to the Hebrew scriptures and he need not repeat any of the actual words of Jesus too often, words with which his disciples could perhaps become aquainted with by asking other believers, just seeing his mission as proving Jesus was the Messiah, and was "Risen".

  He certainly gave impetus to the Jesus myth, so that after the Temple destruction the writers of the Gospels and Acts etc could persuade the Christians to go their way.

  Link
• 

  PSacramento 14 years ago

  Indeed, the untutored and superstitious hearers were apt to embellish immediately to make the story more interesting.

  I think whatever authentic Jesus sayings made their way through untarnished were also mixed in with incredible riffs of imagination.

  Opinion and assumption on your part with no direct evidence that backs it, even if you are right.

  If you read the writings of the Early Church fathers and the giant intellects (Augustine and Aquinas) you immediately get the impression

  these were naive and weird minds in the throes of superstition made real.

  Seriously? have you actually read them? Augustine postulated things that quantum physics is working on NOW, the throery of time being finite and relative to our perception, that with the beginning of the univer, began time, that God exists outside of the time and space as we know it ( mulitple dimensions and universe).

  Philospheers view Augustine and Aquinas as great thinks and philosophers and indeed their were, to say thier minds were wierd and naive,well...what can one say of the likes of those that came after like Nietche and Rand and such?

  The Apostles vs Paul is no contest.

  When did the Apostles (whose "writings" came after Paul's epistles) show any indication of awarenss of him?

  Peter speaks of Paul

  When did Paul show any awareness of them?

  He mentions them quite a bit actually.

  It is as though the two existed in alternate literary universes.

  Later redactors seem to have tried to blend them together (ACTS/ROMANS)

  Hardly.

  Link