Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 3:15 pm
With all due respect, I think that I miscommunicated my ideas, for which I apologize. I meant to say:

With all due respect, though, early Christians were not only the leaders but also the followers (including followers of Paul, but also of other leaders) - and if Paul had been typical of Early Christians (by which is meant leaders and followers alike) in his beliefs, then he would not have had to keep correcting his followers among the early Christians about issues such as whether the dead would raised - or complaining that they were following other early Christian leaders such as Cephas and Apollos.

Does that clarify anything?

I reckon no one ever agreed with everyone about everything, but Paul's view on resurrection was in line with Christian leaders, and while some Jewish Christians disagreed with Paul, Christian leaders accepted his mission to the Gentiles. And Paul only complained about people who followed prominent early Christians because he thought all the credit should go to God, not because he disagreed with their teachings.

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 3:22 pm

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 2:41 pm I don't see this as criticizing anyone else's teaching, otherwise Paul would be criticizing his own teaching, but rather he is criticizing people boasting that they were baptized by or followed this or that Christian figure.

Furthermore, your admission that Paul was reproved fore his views about torah observance by other Christian leaders reveals that he was not a typical early Christian even when such a term is limited to leaders.

But Paul was willing to at least pretend to be Torah observant (as per 1 Cor. 9:20), and he is presented as being Torah observant in Acts. He may not have agreed with Christian leaders regarding Jewish Torah observance, but he was willing to defer to them on it (however insincere he may have been). And in that respect he was a typical early Christian.

1. You ignore passages in which Paul does condemn his followers for following other Christian leaders - such as 2 Corinthians 11:1-15.

I see these "false apostles" as being the same sort of Christians that Paul calls "false brothers" in Gal. 2:4, whose views did not prevail with Christian leaders (i.e., James, Peter and John).

2. Acts is not historically reliable; rather, the Acts Seminar has revealed that it was 2nd century propaganda meant to impose precisely what you are deriving from it - an impression that early Christianity was united and that Paul was typical of it.

However one assesses the historical reliability of Acts, we don't need Acts to know that Paul was willing to pretend to be Torah observant (1 Cor. 9:20), but the presentation of Paul in Acts is in keeping with that.

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 4:25 pm I see these "false apostles" as being the same sort of Christians that Paul calls "false brothers" in Gal. 2:4, whose views did not prevail with Christian leaders.

Do you have any reasoning or citation to support your claim? I mean, brothers and apostles are fundamentally different things - with the term "apostle" conveying that one is a leader within a Christian movement.

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 4:31 pm

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 4:25 pm I see these "false apostles" as being the same sort of Christians that Paul calls "false brothers" in Gal. 2:4, whose views did not prevail with Christian leaders.

Do you have any reasoning or citation to support your claim? I mean, brothers and apostles are fundamentally different things - with the term "apostle" conveying that one is a leader within a Christian movement.

Before seeing your response I clarified what I meant by Christian leaders (i.e., James, Peter and John). And Paul calls James an apostle and a brother in the same sentence (Gal. 1:19: "I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother"), so someone could be called a brother and an apostle, and not all brother/apostles were in line with James, Peter and John like Paul was.

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 4:11 pm

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 3:15 pm
With all due respect, I think that I miscommunicated my ideas, for which I apologize. I meant to say:

With all due respect, though, early Christians were not only the leaders but also the followers (including followers of Paul, but also of other leaders) - and if Paul had been typical of Early Christians (by which is meant leaders and followers alike) in his beliefs, then he would not have had to keep correcting his followers among the early Christians about issues such as whether the dead would raised - or complaining that they were following other early Christian leaders such as Cephas and Apollos.

Does that clarify anything?

I reckon no one ever agreed with everyone about everything, but Paul's view on resurrection was in line with Christian leaders, and while some Jewish Christians disagreed with Paul, Christian leaders accepted his mission to the Gentiles. And Paul only complained about people who followed prominent early Christians because he thought all the credit should go to God, not because he disagreed with their teachings.

1. But we are not only talking about Christian leaders but also about lay Christians - and going by Paul's letters, many of them held different views about the resurrection. Why should we assume that they were not a majority among Christians? Leaders are a minority, and their views may be different from those of followers.

2. Galatians 1:8-10 and 3:1-3 are suggesting, in combination with the verses from Corinthians which I cited, that Paul was indeed dealing with rival Christian leaders.

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 4:44 pm

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 4:31 pm

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 4:25 pm I see these "false apostles" as being the same sort of Christians that Paul calls "false brothers" in Gal. 2:4, whose views did not prevail with Christian leaders.

Do you have any reasoning or citation to support your claim? I mean, brothers and apostles are fundamentally different things - with the term "apostle" conveying that one is a leader within a Christian movement.

Before seeing your response I clarified what I meant by Christian leaders (i.e., James, Peter and John). And Paul calls James an apostle and a brother in the same sentence ("I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother"), so someone could be called a brother and an apostle, and not all brother/apostles were in line with James, Peter and John like Paul was.

1. 3 people are not a majority in any but the smallest sect.

2. The fact (assumed for this thread only) that Paul had to specify that James was an apostle and a brother supports the idea that apostles were superior to ordinary Christians - as leaders.

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 4:46 pm

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 4:11 pm

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 3:15 pm
With all due respect, I think that I miscommunicated my ideas, for which I apologize. I meant to say:

With all due respect, though, early Christians were not only the leaders but also the followers (including followers of Paul, but also of other leaders) - and if Paul had been typical of Early Christians (by which is meant leaders and followers alike) in his beliefs, then he would not have had to keep correcting his followers among the early Christians about issues such as whether the dead would raised - or complaining that they were following other early Christian leaders such as Cephas and Apollos.

Does that clarify anything?

I reckon no one ever agreed with everyone about everything, but Paul's view on resurrection was in line with Christian leaders, and while some Jewish Christians disagreed with Paul, Christian leaders accepted his mission to the Gentiles. And Paul only complained about people who followed prominent early Christians because he thought all the credit should go to God, not because he disagreed with their teachings.

1. But we are not only talking about Christian leaders but also about lay Christians - and going by Paul's letters, many of them held different views about the resurrection. Why should we assume that they were not a majority among Christians? Leaders are a minority, and their views may be different from those of followers.

I don't know what the majority view may have been, but Paul's view of resurrection was in line with James, Peter and John.

2. Galatians 1:8-10 and 3:1-3 are suggesting, in combination with the verses from Corinthians which I cited, that Paul was indeed dealing with rival Christian leaders.

I suppose early Christians who disagreed with Paul had their particular leaders, but according to Epiphanius, the anti-Pauline faction (i.e., Ebionites) did not break away from the Nazarenes (i.e., those who accepted Paul) until after 70 CE, which indicates to me that the leadership of James, Peter and John (or their rulings) prevailed until then.

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 4:48 pm
1. 3 people are not a majority in any but the smallest sect.

No, but Paul says they were "highly esteemed" (Gal. 2:6) and "reputed to be pillars" (2:9).

2. The fact (assumed for this thread only) that Paul had to specify that James was an apostle and a brother supports the idea that apostles were superior to ordinary Christians - as leaders.

Paul calls all kinds of people apostles, like Andronicus and Junia in Rom 16:7:

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow countrymen and fellow prisoners. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

And he calls Timothy an apostle (1 Thess. 1:1/2:6) and a brother (2 Cor. 1:1). So there were good brothers/apostles and bad brothers/apostles according to Paul, and the good ones (like James, Peter, John, Andronicus, Junia and Timothy) were cool with him and "highly esteemed" and the bad ones weren't.

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 5:29 amPaul's Letters, Taken at Face Value, Reveal that He was not a Typical Early Christian!

Rather, he was constantly trying to assert, against other Christian believers and leaders, that his Christianity was the true Christianity. Why did it take me so long to realize this?

Thinking about this: I'm not sure that that is true. It'd be instructive to see where Paul agrees and disagrees with others in his letters.

First, Paul seems to see his views in alignment with other Christians (though the term isn't used, of course). In Galatians:

Gal 1.21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;
22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
24 And they glorified God in me.

He also seems to concede some kind of authority to the pillars, if only reluctantly!:

Gal 2.2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

2.9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Since from my perspective, James was the literal brother of Jesus (if you disagree, then fair enough, that's fine!) Paul is -- in the main -- within the body of the Christianity that emerged straight after the death of Jesus.

When it came to disagreements, some of it appears to be with regards to certain doctrines, around the resurrection body, for example:

1 Cor 15.12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

But that doesn't represent a "different" Christianity, rather a disagreement over a point of doctrine.

Then there are other "false apostles" who do indeed seem to preach a different Christianity, though what that is Paul doesn't specify:

2 Cor 11.4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him...
...
11.13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

"Deceitful workers" implies that they are using the same talking points, but giving their own spin on things.

But in the whole, Paul does seem to place himself in the mainstream of Christianity; sitting on the "gentile" wing, yes, but with the approval of the mainstream church.

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 3:15 pm With all due respect, though, early Christians were not only the leaders but also the followers (including followers of Paul, but also of other leaders) - and if Paul had been typical of Early Christians (by which is meant leaders and followers alike) in his beliefs, then he would not have had to keep correcting his followers among the early Christians about issues such as whether the dead would raised - or complaining that they were following other early Christian leaders such as Cephas and Apollos.

I see Paul as packaging up Christianity as he sees it and from what already existed into his new gospel which is pretty exclusive. His opponents may have opposed him as much for his insistence on being the one with the only true gospel as anything else. I think it really is doubtful the faction requiring Torah observance was actually original despite the link to James and Peter - it could have just been another offshoot if this thing had been around a while, any historical movement would have people on the fringes up the wazoo. That's exactly what you find in Galatians, Paul denying he had hung around other disciples that the James faction might not agree with, he only hung around Peter he swears - that explains the bizarre denial. So if the James faction wasn't original then Paul's new gospel could be more original than might be thought although he was not part of the original thing any more, ie the Odes type Christianity which also didn't require Torah observance for gentiles it would seem. So no, I don't see Paul as a radical corrupter of the original movement like he would be if the James faction were the original ones