And, as far as the NT is concerned there is no evidence that Paul died as a prisoner. But Christian tradition maintains that he was martyred by Caesar so I *assume* that his life ended in captivity. That captivity was relatively mild since he was not under armed guard in Rome. But as a prisoner in transit awaiting trial he would not have been free to travel abroad. So it's a matter of degree I guess.
My point is, his evangelical ministry which had been so powerful before his trip to Jerusalem was drastically curtailed afterward.
There are some, not a majority, but a sizeable number of scholars that believe Paul was released from captivity, did another itinerary to Spain, returned, and then was arrested again, this time under Nero. They believe Paul was killed under Nero when Nero blamed the Christians for the burning of Rome. So much was not recorded and much was burned as well. Do we really know that Paul's ministry was curtailed? I'm just raising a point for discussion only to point out that much is assumed about Paul that may or may not be true.
There are some, not a majority, but a sizeable number of scholars that believe Paul was released from captivity, did another itinerary to Spain, returned, and then was arrested again, this time under Nero. They believe Paul was killed under Nero when Nero blamed the Christians for the burning of Rome. So much was not recorded and much was burned as well. Do we really know that Paul's ministry was curtailed? I'm just raising a point for discussion only to point out that much is assumed about Paul that may or may not be true.
I don't think anyone knows for sure beyond the Scripture. But if you looked only at the Scripture I think it's fairly obvious that the impact of his ministry was lessened. Look at the difference just in Acts. After that event, there's no record of him participating or leading any significant new outreach. Look at how often he seems to have to apologize for his incarceration in the Church epistles.
On the common sense point, ask yourself why God would spend so much time warning Paul not to go and specifically warning him about captivity if it didn't impede his ministry? If it didn't make any difference in his ministry, why would God work so hard to get him to change his mind; even to the point that everyone around him knew he was being disobedient?
But your basic point is valid. We really don't know, so it's a matter of opinion as to the consequence. But I think it's pretty clear that the trip itself was not God's will.
I don't think anyone knows for sure beyond the Scripture. But if you looked only at the Scripture I think it's fairly obvious that the impact of his ministry was lessened. Look at the difference just in Acts. After that event, there's no record of him participating or leading any significant new outreach. Look at how often he seems to have to apologize for his incarceration in the Church epistles.
On the common sense point, ask yourself why God would spend so much time warning Paul not to go and specifically warning him about captivity if it didn't impede his ministry? If it didn't make any difference in his ministry, why would God work so hard to get him to change his mind; even to the point that everyone around him knew he was being disobedient?
But your basic point is valid. We really don't know, so it's a matter of opinion as to the consequence. But I think it's pretty clear that the trip itself was not God's will.
Oh, I agree. The point I'm making is that many of us assume things that aren't necessarily proven. When I started this thread I was referring to how VP ranted about how Paul didn't lead a single soul to Christ after his incarceration. The scripture says that some did believe his preaching when he preached under house arrest. I think you and I are in agreement here.
But, after Paul went to Jerusalem, was mobbed and jailed as the believers and Agabus had prophesied, he stayed in prison for the rest of his life. He was not freed. Why not? Consider what kind of message it would have sent to the Church if God had publicly warned his "chief" apostle against a course of action, then immediately wiped away the consequences of said action. It would have set a double standard in the Church. You must obey the will of the Lord unless you're an Apostle in which case you can do whatever you want and it's blessed. I think the fact that the Lord left Paul in bonds reinforces the belief that his trip to Jerusalem was an act of public disobedience.
It would have sent the message that "God forgives." I mean, it's not like he didn't suffer any consequences at all.
just my opinion
Well okay, I was reading this and started laughing. Just last night I had a discussion with my Nurse. She was talking about her God and how her preacher gave a mighty teaching,... On - whatever. But "whatever" led to the revelation that many members were doing awful things for which they might be punished.
I asked if they had Sunday school. She said yes. I asked what they taught there. She said that they taught that God was Love and that Jesus loved them,... and they did some coloring.
I told her - that I didn't particularily like her God, but that I loved the Children's God - being as to how they were so completely different.
Now then, a forgiving God,.....
Waysider,... You want the purple or the green crayon? We'll leave the "gr'ups to fight over who gets the best punishment. I hear they're forming lines.
Kids ask questions, because they don't know it all. Grown Ups know it all, so they sometimes forget to ask for forgiveness and blame one another or argue.
It's no small wonder Jesus reccomended the ways of children to us.
I told her - that I didn't particularily like her God, but that I loved the Children's God - being as to how they were so completely different.
Waysider,... You want the purple or the green crayon? We'll leave the "gr'ups to fight over who gets the best punishment. I hear they're forming lines.
Kids ask questions, because they don't know it all. Grown Ups know it all, so they sometimes forget to ask for forgiveness and blame one another or argue.
Lol... I just got through watching a good movie this afternoon called "Stolen Summer". It's about this very same thing..
Definitely 2 thumbs up for me.. (For both the movie and your comments!)
I think you folks misunderstand. I'm not saying God never forgave Paul for going. Obviously he did because Jesus appeared to him and told him to take courage and gave him another assignment.
Acts 23:11 And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
Paul was forgiven, but there were still consequences from his act of disobedience. Being forgiven for a sin doesn't erase all the practical consequences of it. Lots of felons repent and get saved in prisons today. They receive remission of sins and eternal life, but they don't get sprung as soon as they're baptized. They still have to deal with the consequences of what they did. That's why wisdom is so important. Folly has consequences.
That is so crazy Paul made that call behind bars, maybe that is way
Yahweh didn't want Paul to go Jerusalem, who would liston to a call,
like the one Paul made, being behind bars, just a thought, thanks.
Paul wasn't behind bars in Rome. He was under house arrest. He wore an ankle bracelet. The other end of its chain was fastened to a burly member of the Praetorian Guard. Paul was free to receive who ever wanted to visit him. He just couldn't leave the house. He DID preach, teach and minister to people while he was waiting for his trial.
Paul couldn't have "made a call" the way we use those words. Up until about 100 years ago, when the use of telephones became widespread, "to call" someone meant "to visit" that person at his or her house. If you showed up on someone's doorstep, and they were indisposed to see you, you would leave a "calling card", so they would remember that you had been by.
Two examples of the "calls" Paul would have sent out while under house arrest in Rome are "Philemon" and "Colossians", which had nothing to do with a mysterious "age" of grace, or of the church. Paul doesn't tell us in II Timothy why "all they which are in Asia" turned away from him (II Timothy 1:15), but he does tell us why Demas forsook him in II Timothy 4:10, because Demas loved this "age".
The fact that the Romans had Paul under arrest would not have fazed his followers, who were, after all, primarily following a man who had been CRUCIFIED by the Romans!
...The fact that the Romans had Paul under arrest would not have fazed his followers, who were, after all, primarily following a man who had been CRUCIFIED by the Romans!
Love,
Steve
Not quite a fit analogy Steve. Jesus was guiltless and was crucified for our sins. Paul was imprisoned after disobeying the declared will of the Lord.
So Paul's lingering imprisonment could have been seen as a sign of the Lord's displeasure with his trip which could have weakened his leadership in the Church.
Obviously his most loyal followers stuck by him. But we must also remember that Paul had adversaries in the Church. There were determined leaders who believed, as James did, that Paul's gospel was wrong and that his lifestyle among the Gentiles was wrong.
Paul's imprisonment would doubtless have given these factions more ammunition and credibility. If he had not gone to Jerusalem, he could have continued to confront their legalism in person with the full force of his persona, moving among the Gentile churches as the Spirit of the Lord directed. Having been locked up, he was limited to writing letters.
In light of this environment, it is certainly reasonable to believe that part of the reason "all Asia" had turned away from him was because his adversaries were able to use his imprisonment against his reputation and as an opportunity to go after his followers without him being able to challenge them in person.
I really think a lot of that is like second or third generation stories made up by those with different agendas.
Acts and Timothy do not jive with the epistles much at all.
He had followers before he went to Jerusalem and got arrested. :-)
Galatians 4:14 & 15 indicate that the believers in that region held him in very high esteem. Of course the epistle as a whole indicates that their love and respect for Paul was apparently eradicated by the legalistic zealots from Jerusalem got in there and turned them around.
And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, [even] as Christ Jesus.
Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if [it had been] possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me
Maybe it all comes to how you define a "follower" since last I read Paul was against "following" any man outside of Christ.
From the Church epistles. As noted above, Paul's epistle to the Galatians indicates that he was loved and respected by them at one time.
Also I Corinthians 1:12 indicates that Paul had followers, even though he didn't encourage them it.
...or did he?
I Corinthians 11:1 & 2
Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you.
I Corinthians 4:16 & 17
Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.
As is the case with many topics in the NT, Paul can be used as a reference for each side of the argument. He criticized the Corinthian church for being carnal when they argued over whose disciples they were, but in the same epistle encouraged --in fact, begged them-- to be his "followers".
So we could argue till the cows come home as to whether Paul had a following. I submit that he did and that he encouraged such behavior. And that was a good thing because he was a dedicated man of God. But when he got incarcerated after having gone his own way, some--perhaps most--of his followers were dissuaded from their devotion to his gospel and became devotees of other leaders in the Church.
Certainly it wasn't just the trip to Jerusalem and his subsequent imprisonment that caused or allowed that. He was fighting the influence of the legalists long before that. It was this fight that compelled him to go to Jerusalem against the will of the Lord. But after the trip and imprisonment, I think Paul's opponents gained the upper hand.
See? This stuff is what makes it so implausible that everything fits like a hand in a glove, every word is God-breathed, yada, yada.----"Follow me."/"Don't follow me." The contradiction is obvious.
I think we make a big mistake if we think Paul was the foremost Christian in the early days of the Church, and all Christianity was ruined when he went to Jerusalem. I think this erroneous view of Paul arose for a number of reasons:
1. Paul was the apostle to the gentiles, and the Church became predominantly gentile after the first century.
2. Since the gentile Christian communities were so widely scattered, Paul had to stay on the move, and consequently, had to write a heck of a lot more letters than the other evangelists did. He also had to write a lot more because the gentile believers didn't have the background to understand how Christ and His resurrection fit in with 2nd temple Judaism.
3. When Matin Luther started actually reading what was written in the Bible, he was attracted to the book of Romans, and read the legalism of medieval Roman Catholicism into the "law" of 2nd temple Judaism (eisegesis). Since Paul had to explain the relation between law and grace to his gentile readers, Protestants came to see Paul as the exponent of an antagonism between law and grace that was more appropriate to the 16th century than to the 1st. Paul assumed disproportionate importance in the eyes of the Protestants.
4. In the 19th century, Darby, Scofield, Bullinger, et al., redefined the mystery of the New Testament from "God exalting Jesus to the function of Lord after His resurrection", to "God revealing a secret period of time when the Church would be completely separate and discontinuous from Israel" to the apostle Paul. In effect, this made Paul, rather than Christ, the founder of Christianity for the Church "in this our day and time", and those who turned away from Paul must also have turned away from true Christianity (and those today who turn away from dispensationalism are turning away from true Christianity).
But Paul WASN'T the foremost Christian in the early days of the Church. The honor of that title definitely belongs to Peter (even though I don't think that made him a proto-pope). In James D.G. Dunn's book Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, he analyzed the spectrum of beliefs in 2nd temple Judaism, and the spectrum of beliefs that arose within Christianity as it grew.
If we look at the early Church on a scale of conservative and progressive attitudes toward the statement "Jesus is Lord", James would seem to be on the far right, and Paul would be on the far left. Since Luther, some people have even considered that James should not have been included in the canon.
But it was Peter, the linchpin, who kept Christianity from flying apart. The great mystery, that Gad had raised Jesus from the dead and made him both Christ and LORD, was first preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost. The first gentiles who became Christians, without first becoming Jews, became so under the ministrations of Peter.
When Paul writes in Galatians, he makes Peter sound like a temporizing wimp, but that's not necessarily the way the Lord viewed the transactions.
Did all those who live in Asia, who turned away from Paul, also turn away from Christianity? The Seven Church Epistles, set forth in Revelation 2:1-3:22, are addressed to the churches in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea. All these were located within the Roman province of Asia. These were real, living, 1st century Christians. Revelation was written about a generation or so after Paul, and all these congregations were considered to be Christian by the writer of Revelation. Some of them had problems that needed to be addressed, doubtless, but Philadelphia at least seemed to be in pretty good order.
So how much weight should be given to Paul's statement a generation earlier, that they had all turned away from him? In what specific way did they turn away from him?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
12
9
8
9
Popular Days
Aug 29
12
Aug 19
7
Aug 27
7
Aug 8
4
Top Posters In This Topic
Jbarrax 12 posts
Steve Lortz 9 posts
cman 8 posts
Broken Arrow 9 posts
Popular Days
Aug 29 2010
12 posts
Aug 19 2010
7 posts
Aug 27 2010
7 posts
Aug 8 2010
4 posts
Popular Posts
roberterasmus
Hi Para, As for "most people" do you mean "most people who've gotten out of TWI" or just "most people"? The evangelical (scholarly) world (for what it's worth) pretty much read Acts as if it was doc
Gen-2
Well okay, I was reading this and started laughing. Just last night I had a discussion with my Nurse. She was talking about her God and how her preacher gave a mighty teaching,... On - whatever. But
Broken Arrow
There are some, not a majority, but a sizeable number of scholars that believe Paul was released from captivity, did another itinerary to Spain, returned, and then was arrested again, this time under Nero. They believe Paul was killed under Nero when Nero blamed the Christians for the burning of Rome. So much was not recorded and much was burned as well. Do we really know that Paul's ministry was curtailed? I'm just raising a point for discussion only to point out that much is assumed about Paul that may or may not be true.
Edited by Broken ArrowLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
I don't think anyone knows for sure beyond the Scripture. But if you looked only at the Scripture I think it's fairly obvious that the impact of his ministry was lessened. Look at the difference just in Acts. After that event, there's no record of him participating or leading any significant new outreach. Look at how often he seems to have to apologize for his incarceration in the Church epistles.
On the common sense point, ask yourself why God would spend so much time warning Paul not to go and specifically warning him about captivity if it didn't impede his ministry? If it didn't make any difference in his ministry, why would God work so hard to get him to change his mind; even to the point that everyone around him knew he was being disobedient?
But your basic point is valid. We really don't know, so it's a matter of opinion as to the consequence. But I think it's pretty clear that the trip itself was not God's will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Oh, I agree. The point I'm making is that many of us assume things that aren't necessarily proven. When I started this thread I was referring to how VP ranted about how Paul didn't lead a single soul to Christ after his incarceration. The scripture says that some did believe his preaching when he preached under house arrest. I think you and I are in agreement here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
Well okay, I was reading this and started laughing. Just last night I had a discussion with my Nurse. She was talking about her God and how her preacher gave a mighty teaching,... On - whatever. But "whatever" led to the revelation that many members were doing awful things for which they might be punished.
I asked if they had Sunday school. She said yes. I asked what they taught there. She said that they taught that God was Love and that Jesus loved them,... and they did some coloring.
I told her - that I didn't particularily like her God, but that I loved the Children's God - being as to how they were so completely different.
Now then, a forgiving God,.....
Waysider,... You want the purple or the green crayon? We'll leave the "gr'ups to fight over who gets the best punishment. I hear they're forming lines.
Kids ask questions, because they don't know it all. Grown Ups know it all, so they sometimes forget to ask for forgiveness and blame one another or argue.
It's no small wonder Jesus reccomended the ways of children to us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Lol... I just got through watching a good movie this afternoon called "Stolen Summer". It's about this very same thing..
Definitely 2 thumbs up for me.. (For both the movie and your comments!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
I think you folks misunderstand. I'm not saying God never forgave Paul for going. Obviously he did because Jesus appeared to him and told him to take courage and gave him another assignment.
Paul was forgiven, but there were still consequences from his act of disobedience. Being forgiven for a sin doesn't erase all the practical consequences of it. Lots of felons repent and get saved in prisons today. They receive remission of sins and eternal life, but they don't get sprung as soon as they're baptized. They still have to deal with the consequences of what they did. That's why wisdom is so important. Folly has consequences.
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Oh, I want a blue one. That's always been my favorite color.
But, if you can get the whole set, you can color a wonderful world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Well....hm....
Forgiving ourselves is the main thing.
To move on without guilt or fear.
If what has already been done can be seen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
Broken Arrow started a different post about a call Paul made, and all Asia
turned away or something like that, did that call come before or after Pauls
arrest, or during Pauls prison time or after Pauls release?
Edited by teachmevpLink to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
During Paul's prison time. The verse you're referring to is in Timothy; II Timothy if I'm not mistaken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
That is so crazy Paul made that call behind bars, maybe that is way
Yahweh didn't want Paul to go Jerusalem, who would liston to a call,
like the one Paul made, being behind bars, just a thought, thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Paul wasn't behind bars in Rome. He was under house arrest. He wore an ankle bracelet. The other end of its chain was fastened to a burly member of the Praetorian Guard. Paul was free to receive who ever wanted to visit him. He just couldn't leave the house. He DID preach, teach and minister to people while he was waiting for his trial.
Paul couldn't have "made a call" the way we use those words. Up until about 100 years ago, when the use of telephones became widespread, "to call" someone meant "to visit" that person at his or her house. If you showed up on someone's doorstep, and they were indisposed to see you, you would leave a "calling card", so they would remember that you had been by.
Two examples of the "calls" Paul would have sent out while under house arrest in Rome are "Philemon" and "Colossians", which had nothing to do with a mysterious "age" of grace, or of the church. Paul doesn't tell us in II Timothy why "all they which are in Asia" turned away from him (II Timothy 1:15), but he does tell us why Demas forsook him in II Timothy 4:10, because Demas loved this "age".
The fact that the Romans had Paul under arrest would not have fazed his followers, who were, after all, primarily following a man who had been CRUCIFIED by the Romans!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
teachmevp
That is cool stuff about Paul in Rome, so it is like the sower and the seed on that Asia thing,
some seed fell here or there? It does seem like Paul was saying something different, I guess
it just seemed to make sense at the time, that call thing, trippe stuff.
Edited by teachmevpLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Not quite a fit analogy Steve. Jesus was guiltless and was crucified for our sins. Paul was imprisoned after disobeying the declared will of the Lord.
So Paul's lingering imprisonment could have been seen as a sign of the Lord's displeasure with his trip which could have weakened his leadership in the Church.
Obviously his most loyal followers stuck by him. But we must also remember that Paul had adversaries in the Church. There were determined leaders who believed, as James did, that Paul's gospel was wrong and that his lifestyle among the Gentiles was wrong.
Paul's imprisonment would doubtless have given these factions more ammunition and credibility. If he had not gone to Jerusalem, he could have continued to confront their legalism in person with the full force of his persona, moving among the Gentile churches as the Spirit of the Lord directed. Having been locked up, he was limited to writing letters.
In light of this environment, it is certainly reasonable to believe that part of the reason "all Asia" had turned away from him was because his adversaries were able to use his imprisonment against his reputation and as an opportunity to go after his followers without him being able to challenge them in person.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Paul had followers?
I really think a lot of that is like second or third generation stories made up by those with different agendas.
Acts and Timothy do not jive with the epistles much at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
He had followers before he went to Jerusalem and got arrested. :-)
Galatians 4:14 & 15 indicate that the believers in that region held him in very high esteem. Of course the epistle as a whole indicates that their love and respect for Paul was apparently eradicated by the legalistic zealots from Jerusalem got in there and turned them around.
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Curious where you get that bit of information?
Maybe it all comes to how you define a "follower" since last I read Paul was against "following" any man outside of Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I was thinking something similar T&O,
but didn't want to sound like brawling,
and you didn't sound like that to me.
Anyway the 'following' thing in Acts and Timothys sounds competitive.
where in the epistles it's 'be followers together with me as I am of Christ'.
So there is a different tone in my opinion.
We all need each other at times to see things.
Like tupos from the heart, with Christ being seen inside.
And not to say Acts and Timothys can't add some light,
but there is a different attitude in those books.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
From the Church epistles. As noted above, Paul's epistle to the Galatians indicates that he was loved and respected by them at one time.
Also I Corinthians 1:12 indicates that Paul had followers, even though he didn't encourage them it.
...or did he?
As is the case with many topics in the NT, Paul can be used as a reference for each side of the argument. He criticized the Corinthian church for being carnal when they argued over whose disciples they were, but in the same epistle encouraged --in fact, begged them-- to be his "followers".
So we could argue till the cows come home as to whether Paul had a following. I submit that he did and that he encouraged such behavior. And that was a good thing because he was a dedicated man of God. But when he got incarcerated after having gone his own way, some--perhaps most--of his followers were dissuaded from their devotion to his gospel and became devotees of other leaders in the Church.
Certainly it wasn't just the trip to Jerusalem and his subsequent imprisonment that caused or allowed that. He was fighting the influence of the legalists long before that. It was this fight that compelled him to go to Jerusalem against the will of the Lord. But after the trip and imprisonment, I think Paul's opponents gained the upper hand.
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
and those ways are the point,
do you agree with that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Of course. But that doesn't eliminate the fact that Paul had and encouraged followers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
See? This stuff is what makes it so implausible that everything fits like a hand in a glove, every word is God-breathed, yada, yada.----"Follow me."/"Don't follow me." The contradiction is obvious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I think we make a big mistake if we think Paul was the foremost Christian in the early days of the Church, and all Christianity was ruined when he went to Jerusalem. I think this erroneous view of Paul arose for a number of reasons:
1. Paul was the apostle to the gentiles, and the Church became predominantly gentile after the first century.
2. Since the gentile Christian communities were so widely scattered, Paul had to stay on the move, and consequently, had to write a heck of a lot more letters than the other evangelists did. He also had to write a lot more because the gentile believers didn't have the background to understand how Christ and His resurrection fit in with 2nd temple Judaism.
3. When Matin Luther started actually reading what was written in the Bible, he was attracted to the book of Romans, and read the legalism of medieval Roman Catholicism into the "law" of 2nd temple Judaism (eisegesis). Since Paul had to explain the relation between law and grace to his gentile readers, Protestants came to see Paul as the exponent of an antagonism between law and grace that was more appropriate to the 16th century than to the 1st. Paul assumed disproportionate importance in the eyes of the Protestants.
4. In the 19th century, Darby, Scofield, Bullinger, et al., redefined the mystery of the New Testament from "God exalting Jesus to the function of Lord after His resurrection", to "God revealing a secret period of time when the Church would be completely separate and discontinuous from Israel" to the apostle Paul. In effect, this made Paul, rather than Christ, the founder of Christianity for the Church "in this our day and time", and those who turned away from Paul must also have turned away from true Christianity (and those today who turn away from dispensationalism are turning away from true Christianity).
But Paul WASN'T the foremost Christian in the early days of the Church. The honor of that title definitely belongs to Peter (even though I don't think that made him a proto-pope). In James D.G. Dunn's book Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, he analyzed the spectrum of beliefs in 2nd temple Judaism, and the spectrum of beliefs that arose within Christianity as it grew.
If we look at the early Church on a scale of conservative and progressive attitudes toward the statement "Jesus is Lord", James would seem to be on the far right, and Paul would be on the far left. Since Luther, some people have even considered that James should not have been included in the canon.
But it was Peter, the linchpin, who kept Christianity from flying apart. The great mystery, that Gad had raised Jesus from the dead and made him both Christ and LORD, was first preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost. The first gentiles who became Christians, without first becoming Jews, became so under the ministrations of Peter.
When Paul writes in Galatians, he makes Peter sound like a temporizing wimp, but that's not necessarily the way the Lord viewed the transactions.
Did all those who live in Asia, who turned away from Paul, also turn away from Christianity? The Seven Church Epistles, set forth in Revelation 2:1-3:22, are addressed to the churches in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea. All these were located within the Roman province of Asia. These were real, living, 1st century Christians. Revelation was written about a generation or so after Paul, and all these congregations were considered to be Christian by the writer of Revelation. Some of them had problems that needed to be addressed, doubtless, but Philadelphia at least seemed to be in pretty good order.
So how much weight should be given to Paul's statement a generation earlier, that they had all turned away from him? In what specific way did they turn away from him?
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Definitely food for critical thought and closer examination, Steve.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.