Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Conflicts (was question for J.Kilmon)

Expand Messages
  • John M. Noble
    Sorry, Jack: I misread your line of reasoning. I thought that your final sentence was a conclusion drawn from the foregoing, so I read your mail wrongly. It
    Message 1 of 29 , Sep 15, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Sorry, Jack:

      I misread your line of reasoning. I thought that your final sentence
      was a conclusion drawn from the foregoing, so I read your mail
      wrongly. It does seem to me, though, that often people start with the
      premis of theological inconsistencies in scripture and end up proving
      theological inconsistencies based on this premis.

      But you raised an interesting point.

      >The Jesus people (his eyewitness followers, friends and family) DID hold
      >very different points of view than the early Christian (meaning gentile)
      >church. 4G, IMO, spans thiose different cultures, communities and moments
      >in time.

      Wasn't all early Christianity essentially Jewish? Paul, the apostle
      to the gentiles was extremely Jewish in his way of thinking. He
      didn't compromise at all and bullied those under his charge into
      accepting exactly his view. So weren't the gentiles essentially
      forced into accepting something that was very Jewish? At least in the
      very early stages.

      But there seem to have been serious conflicts within this Jewish
      circle. I recently saw a suggestion (C.K. Barrett in 'Conflicts and
      Challenges in Early Christianity', ed. D.A. Hagner) the idea that
      Paul was not only in conflict with Peter, but was, by association,
      essentially in conflict with the whole of the inner circle (John,
      James, Peter). Barrett believes that these are the 'superapostles'
      about whom Paul talks sarcastically in II Cor.

      For me, this theory seems to have a basic problem. If the BD was John
      and if 4G and 1J reflect his theological standpoint, wouldn't that
      mean that John was vaguely anti - sacramental and therefore likely to
      be on exactly the same side as Paul about matters related to
      circumcision, ceremonies, etc? Furthermore, it had always struck me
      that although there is an obvious shift of emphasis between John and
      Paul, they seem to be in broad agreement. Does this substantiate the
      argument that the BD was not John? Or would this suggest that John
      came round to Paul's way of thinking after Paul was dead? Or is there
      some less simplistic way of looking at this?

      John
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.