spin

I didn't talk about conflict in teaching. But to hint at my thought, the "sociology" of Acts is nearer to established/settled in christianity than it is to Paul.

spin

I'm trying to read Paul without the hindsight of established christianity. How do you think Paul would have referred to messianists such as John the Baptist's followers, if not as being in christ?

(I was naughty earlier and used "Peter" when I should have used "Cephas". Assuming the two are the same for Paul's time is promiscuous.)

Without retrojecting notions from later christianity, what would make you think from Paul's writings that Cephas had direct experience of Jesus? Is it purely an implication of the weird and wonderful passage in 1 Cor 15:3-11?

Bernard Muller

to Spin,
Consistently, Paul always have Jesus as Christ. So I do not see what you are objecting to. People "in Christ" always means (Jesus based) Christians for Paul. He never hinted followers of JtB would also be called "in Christ". Paul never acknowledged JtB.
I see no reason to reject everything in the gospels (more so from gMark and Q). That's the main difference between us two. BTW, I take 1Cor15:3-11 as an interpolation.

sotto voce

But you don't indicate that there is no conflict.

Is this of importance, if the message of the letters attrib. Paul is not in conflict with the implied teaching of Acts?

(It seems to me, though, that the 'sociology' of Acts is fully consonant with that of Paul, and that people see contradictions that do not exist.)

judge

Yes, and you need it to be highly, suspicious or your theory falls flat. If its just a little odd, that wont do so with the usual hyperbole anything that might bolster your theory becomes "highly" suspicious.

LegionOnomaMoi

I know what you said. I just don't see much evidence for it:
It's not "obvious" at all. In fact, that's one of the main points of 1 Cor 12, esp. 1 Cor 12:12ff.

In 1 Cor 12:12, Paul writes Καθάπερ γὰρ τὸ σωμα ἕν εστι καὶ μέλη ἔχει πολλὰ, πάντα δὲ τὰ μέλη του σώματος τους ενός, πολλὰ ὄντα, ἕν εστι σωμα, οὕτω καὶ ο Χριστός·/kathaper gar to soma hen estin kai mele polla echei, panta de ta mele tou somatos polla onta hen estin soma houtos kai ho Christos.
"For even as the body is one and has many parts, but the parts of the body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ." The use of the singular ekklesia in 1 Cor 12:28 is set in this context. The line right before it is quite explicit: Υμεις δέ εστε σωμα Χριστου καὶ μέλη εκ μέρους/humeis de este soma Christou kai mele ek merous.

The "body parts" of Christ are many, but represent a whole, and when Paul in this line addresses the Corinthians in particular, he doesn't simply use mele but mele ek merous or parts/components/pieces of these body parts. If the "parts" or mele in the previous lines refer only to followers in the corinthian community, there would be no need to add merous.
Thus, even if one reads the singular ekklesia in the following line as referring only to the Corinthian assembly (which, I think, doesn't make sense given that Paul is explaining the how "god" ordered his assembly, and follows this with repeated use of pantes/all, and this ordering is not unique to the corinthians) the soma metaphor shows an abstract conception Paul had concerning a unified entity, composed of different parts, of god.

The reason it's so easy to read every instance of the singular as concerning the specific assembly he's addressing is because he's always addressing a specific group, and thus often refers to X assembly and contrasts it with assemblies in general. However, it's clear apart from his use of assemblies that he concieved of these as a unified "community." That's the the whole point of the soma metaphor. Moreover, in Gal. 1, Paul begins with an address to tais ekklesias tes Galatias/ the assemblies of Galatia. Hence the need for the singular in Gal. 1:13. Using the plural would not, in this case, be a contrast between those Paul was addressing and the "assemblies" in general. It would parallel the use. So Paul uses the singular along wtih tou theou. Now it's a contrast between a conceptually unified assembly of god, versus the specific assemblies in Galatia.

judge

What reason do you have to think paul regarded John as a/the Christ?

aa5874

Again, you are only INVENTING your own story. You MUST supply the source that support what you have written.

No source of antiquity claimed that the pillars believed in a dead prophet.

This is NOT Sunday School. This is BC&H. You MUST, MUST, MUST get your sources.

If you don't have any sources of antiquity then you should stop making Unsubstantiated assertions based on your Imagination.

Duvduv

As far as I am concerned a reference to "the Church" and "churches" is a dead giveaway that the letter or at least parts of it were written by someone in the fifth century when there really was a "Church" after the Constantinians got the ball rolling.

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
I counted a total of 18 "churches" (plural) in combined Romans, 1&2 Corinthians and Galatians.
I counted a total of 6 "church of God" in combined 1&2 Corinthians and Galatians.
"churches" and "church of God" also appear in 'Acts'.