arnoldo

The writer of Acts also mentions Priscilla and Aquila in Acts 18:2-3


Interestingly, the Roman Historian, Suetonius, gives us the following account in Lives of the Twelve Casesars;


Other edicts by Claudius has him forbidding Jews from Syria or Egypt entering the city of Alexandria lest helping to "forment a general plague which infests the whole world."

Salomon Reinach views that this latter edict of Claudius is a reference to the unrest that Jewish believers in Yeshua have caused when confronting their non-believing jewish counterparts. (Source: Christianity Under Claudius by F.F. Bruce)

Chili

Ler me clarify this if you please. If the word Christ is already part of our vocabulary it is a blockade to penetrate the soul, as that makes re-cognition a priory and so 'the night' is already gone. Rather we be like Nicodemus and say 'huh' instead, and ponder what that word actually means. Of course no one will believe this here and that is just fine with me, but I would consider that word like 'a wolf' in the mind of man that preempts all goodness in His name and sin becomes its enemy, while without that word 'sin has no meaning' and will abound until the Law comes alive in us, and then we are ready for Paul.

IOW free and carfee we must play with no rational concept of sin to hold us back . . . except maybe that 'my mother' told me so (and who is she? to say!).

judge

Yes I'd agree. I was trying to communicate to Duvduv this, as he seemed to be suggesting that paul had some obligation to give them some special reverence.
But if we accept that Galatians is from paul then this is obviously not the case.

Solo

What was Cephas doing dining with gentiles in Antioch ? (Gal 2:11-14)

There is a problem with the term 'apostle' and how it was used in Paul's time. Paul, (but more likely first the James' congregation) seems to have modified the accepted meaning of the term which was used for emissaries collecting the temple tax from Jews in diaspora. In Paul's writing however the semantic focus is not 'apostoloi' as representatives of the Jerusalem temple authority, but 'apostoloi' directly from God. Rom 10:15 seems to indicate that in Paul's mind the 'apostolic' status is directly informed by the mission to preach the gospel. Paul himself 'sends' (the greek verb 'apostelein') his friends with dispatches to his churches, i.e. groups who recognize his apostolic status. In this he appears to mimick the embassies of James. It is clear also that at some point Paul was accused of being an impostor because he had no affiliation with Jerusalem, whether with the temple hierarchy or the messianic assembly of James which sent out missions and collected voluntary contributions from Jews and their gentile clients. The revelation to go Jerusalem (Gal 2:2) to make arrangements with James, probably relate more to attacks on Paul's legitimacy and credentials as 'apostle' (see eg. 1 Cr 9:1-2, 2 Cor 3:1-3, 2 Cr 11, 2 Cr 12), than to any 'apostolic' conference called by the saints of the Jerusalem church.

Preaching to gentiles was not a novelty in Paul's time. The word 'proselytos' means 'newcomer' or 'convert to Judaism'.

Read carefully what Paul wrote. What he says (in 15:19-20) may be an artful way of affirming that if someone has already preached Christ in the fashion of his gospel his time would not be well spent there. This may well be a suggestion of independent 'apostles' who confirm Paul's teaching. A similar appeal to a larger movement for 'Christ' is in 1 Cr 1:12-13. Paul had the reputation of being 'slick', which he himself acknoweldges (2 Cr 12:16).

Best,
Jiri

Duvduv

Jiri, how is "someone else's foundation" relevant to a gospel taught by Paul that goes unmentioned anywhere else?

Solo

I have just explained to you how I read that. Beyond that, I have no idea what relevance Paul thought the statement may have had, nor for that matter, what you have in mind by saying that Paul's gospel 'goes unmentioned' elsewhere.

Best,
Jiri