Why Didn't They Know? (page 4)

Kenneson

Saint Satan:
Upon a closer examination of Gal. 2 and Acts 15, perhaps the redactors didn't miss that one. The council of Jerusalem in Acts is a conflation of two different discussions, distinguished in Gal. 2:1-10 and 2:11-14, one concerning circumcision and the other concerning dietary regulations. Luke combined two distinct controversies and their varying solutions (Paul distinguishes them more clearly in Gal. 2). One controversy was about the obligations fo convert Gentiles to observe the Law, and Peter and Paul both took part, see Gal. 2:1-10; the other controversy which took place later was about the social relations between groups of Christian converts, those from Judaism and those from paganism, see Gal. 2:11-14. In this James, in Peter's absence, took the leading part. Any contact with gentiles involved legal impurity for Jews. See Acts 15:20.

Whatever the case in Gal. 2, it is apparent that Paul is not creating a schism. He is not breaking the link to the mother church at Jerusalem, here represented by the three "recognised leaders," the "pillars" of vs. 9; that is why Paul felt the collection for the "poor" in Jerusalem to be important (vs. 10 and 1 Cor. 16:1).

Kenneson

Saint Satan: There is an interesting article on the Apostles at:
http://www.sundayschoolcourses.com/apostles/
It shows from Biblical and legendary accounts where they preached, what they accomplished, and where they died.

Satanus

Kenneson

I was aware of some of those apasolic legends. They may, or may not be true, but the fact is that they weren't put in the bible, whereas, pauls adventures were. Why? Jesus supposedly gave the commission to preach to the entire earth to his 11. He supposedly gave them power to do all kinds of miracles, to aide them in this endeavor. On the other hand, Paul wasn't chosen (except by his own testimony) by jesus. Paul needed to set the eleven straight on several major issues. The bible, depicts as Paul having more vision. He clearly takes power over jesus' original apostles.
_____

The difference between gal 2 and acts 15 could have been a result of biases. Luke may have given a pro jerusalem slant to it, while paul was slightly anti jerusalem, or just telling the truth.

As you mentioned, there could have been two clashes between paul/antioch and the jerusalem group. If this was the case, then it is an extra indication of two factions of jesus followers at that time. It would strengthen my theory of 'the way' being jerusalem based, and having followed jesus' ways from the time of his death. Then half a century later, an antioch group forming around paul, comes to be called christian. This group abandoned or changed many of the traditions that jerusalem had been holding to.

SS

Farkel

Joseph,

: Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ." Nor, we may add, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles - increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity.

Yes and I'm one of many who've mentioned that oddity many times. Furthermore, the outstanding miracle of Jesus raising a man to life who had been dead for THREE days and was likely decomposing was not recorded by ANYONE except his closest followers and they didn't even bother to record that for decades after the event.

Raising such a man to life even in those ancient days would have been worldwide news, and yet no one bothered to make note of it except a few guys with a definite bias.

It's all bullshit.

Farkel

JosephAlward

Right you are, Farkel. And what about all the alleged events surrounding the life of "Jesus" that didn't make the news? Nobody but Matthew knew about slaughter of the male boys under the age of two years old in and around the town of Bethelehem. Nobody but Mark knew that John's head was brought to the dinner table on a platter. There's no record of the five thousand being miraculously fed on just a few loaves of bread and a handful of fish, with food left over; ditto for four thousand more later. No record of the many saints who rose from their graves and chatted up the people in Jerusalem. If these things had really happened, somebody besides the propandizers for Jesus would have written about them.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

Kenneson

Saint Satan:
I was only aware of Paul setting Peter straight in Gal. 2.
Where does he correct the other apostles?
If you read the Scriptures, you will find that the mission territory of some of the Apostles: Philip was the first to announce the gospel in Samaria (modern Sebastiyeh). See Acts 8:5-15. He also preached in the cities of the coastal plain in Israel (Acts 8:26-40). In Acts 21:8 he is in Caesarea (modern Kaisariyeh).

Peter was a pillar of the church at Jerusalem (Acts 15 and Gal. 2:9. He preached in Samaria (Acts 8:14) in Lydda (modern Ludd)(Acts (;32), in Joppa (modern Jaffa) (Acts 9:42), in Antioch (modern Antakia in Syria) (Gal. 2); in Caesarea (Acts 10:24), possibly in Corinth as there was a party of Cephas there (1Cor. 1:12; 3:22) and in Rome
(1 Peter 5:13 and Acts 12:17).

James, son of Zebedee was killed by the sword in Jerusalem by Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:2.

John, son of Zebedee, preached in Samaria (Acts 8:14)

I have to admit that little is said as to the preaching mission field of the others. A few are known only as being on the list of the 12. But we have to remember that certain countries claim as their patron saints some of these apostles. So there certainly can be a basis for believing that they were there. For example, Thomas in India, etc. Just because the Bible doesn't tell us much about where the other apostles preached, doesn't mean they didn't. The writers apparently didn't feel it was that important to include it.

The believers at Jerusalem were called the Way. Those at Antioch Christian. But we are not told that those at Antioch were so named by Paul. They could have been called this by outsiders. For example, Latter Days Saints are called by outsiders Mormons. Whatever the believers of Christ were called, either in Jerusalem or Antioch, doesn't detract from the fact that they were all believers in Christ--even if they had their disagreements.

heathen

alward I'm still waiting for you and the rest of the atheist world to prove evolution .Sure we can look at the ancient civilizations and find that people found new and bizzare ways of explaining their very existence through all sorts of outrageous stories about gods, but you can't argue when the bible states things such as the news about jesus would be preached through out the entire inhabited earth and we are living in a world that is proof of that prophesy .Granted that people are divided over the facts and the bible itself has been translated countless times by biased individuals does not prove it is no more substantiated than Esops fables.It's really amazing to me that any writings at all survived the intense persecution from the pagans and the hebrews .Personally I can't find anything about it that is harder to accept compared to the theory of evolution.

Kenneson

Saint Satan:
I need to make a correction. The Philip I described in a former post is not an apostle but a deacon (Acts 6:1-5 and Acts 8:1). I discovered my error as I was doing more research.

Why Didn't They Know?

Share this