World Blog by humble servant.The passage we quoted from Acts 21:20-26 demonstrates that the original apostles had differing views from Paul, and they had the authority to enforce those views, at least by writing to the Gentile converts to “avoid meat sacrificed to idols, blood, the flesh of strangled animals, and illicit sexual union.

Paul, curiously, despite his exceeding agitation over their activity, never names them.

Whoever they were, they were obviously Christians of great authority or representative of

leaders of great authority; for they were able to go among Paul’s own converts and

successfully present a rival interpretation of the faith. Moreover, although he is so

profoundly disturbed by their action, Paul never questions their authority as they did his.

These facts, taken together with Paul’s very evident embarrassment about his relations

with the leading Apostles at Jerusalem, point irresistibly to one conclusion only: that the

‘other gospel’, which opposes Paul’s own, was the interpretation of the nature and

mission of Jesus propounded by the Jerusalem Church, which comprised the original

Apostles of Jesus and eyewitnesses of his life.

Johnnie Ellington II

Brandon argues that Paul’s ‘super-apostles’ are indeed the original Apostles of Jesus

Reply46m

Johnnie Ellington II

Apostles of Jesus and eyewitnesses of his life.

Not all Biblical scholars agree that the ‘super apostles’ were the original apostles, and

that the ‘other gospel’ was that of the Jerusalem Church, but there is a very good case for

their being so. In fact, the very name ‘super apostles’ is evidence. Who else would fit

such a name?

The passage we quoted earlier from Acts 21:20-26 demonstrates that the original apostles

had differing views from Paul, and they had the authority to enforce those views, at least

by writing to the Gentile converts to “avoid meat sacrificed to idols, blood, the flesh of

strangled animals, and illicit sexual union.”

This is important because since Paul never met Jesus, he had no first hand knowledge of

Christ’s teachings. Yet most of what we know about the very early years of Christianity

comes from Paul’s letters. And the Gospel of Christ which has survived has come

through the Pauline tradition.

Johnnie Ellington II

And more importantly, we do not know how much of

Christ’s own teaching has reached us unflavored by Paul’s understanding.

One thing we do know is that the differences among the early members of the church

were deep and divisive. Paul’s letter to the Galatians makes that clear. Scathingly, Paul

exhorts his readers to stick to the gospel he had delivered to them:

“I am amazed that you are so soon deserting him who called you

in accord with his gracious design in Christ, and are going over

to another gospel.... For if even we, or an angel from heaven,

should preach to you a gospel not in accord with the one we

delivered to you, let a curse be upon him!”

Johnnie Ellington II

In fact, the above verse shows that Paul actively fought against those who observed

Mosaic law. This is reinforced by the following verses:

“I point out once more to all who receive circumcision that they

are bound to the law in its entirety. Any of you who seek your

justification in the law have severed yourselves from Christ and

fallen from God’s favor!”

[Galatians 5:3-4]

One of the strongest pieces of evidence that Paul’s opponents were the original apostles

comes in Galatians 2:6-14:

Those who were regarded as important, however (and it makes

no difference to me how prominent they were-God plays no

favorites), made me add nothing. On the contrary, recognizing

that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the

uncircumcised...those who were the acknowledged pillars,

James, Cephas, and John, gave Barnabas and me the handclasp

of fellowship, signifying that we should go to the Gentiles as they

to the Jews.... When Cephas came to Antioch I directly withstood

him, because he was clearly in the wrong. He had been taking

his meals with the Gentiles before others came who were from

James. But when they arrived he drew back to avoid trouble with

those who were circumcised. The rest of the Jews joined in his

dissembling, till even Barnabas was swept away by their

pretense. As soon as I observed that they were not being

straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I had this to say to

Cephas in the presence of all: “If you who are a Jew are living

according to Gentile ways rather than Jewish, by what logic do

you force the Gentiles to adopt Jewish ways?”

[Galatians 2:6-14]Galatians 2:6-14]

We see here that initially it was James, Cephas and John who recognized Paul’s

authority. What about the other Jerusalem apostles? Were they the important and

prominent ones who wanted Paul to add to his teachings? If not, why were they not

mentioned? And what was he supposed to add? It is logical that these opponents were

original apostles, and that they wanted him to preach the following of Mosaic law.

Later, in Antioch, even Cephas had a run-in with Paul over the practice of Mosaic law.

Paul accuses him and the other Jews of dissembling, and not being straightforward about

the truth of the gospel and of wanting to force the Gentiles to accept Mosaic law. If Paul

attacked even his supporters among the Jerusalem apostles, it is inevitable that he was at

odds with them as a group.

Given the extremely strong prohibition of idol worship in any form, which is at the base

of Mosaic law, it is almost certain that any tendency to deify Jesus would have been

strongly resisted by the Jerusalem apostles. This could well have been the basic cause of

the rift between Paul and the original apostles.

Johnnie Ellington II

According to Paul’s own testimony, his ‘gospel’ was repudiated and his authority as apostle

was rejected by his opponents. This the leaders of the Jerusalem Church could effectively do,

because Paul had never been an original disciple of Jesus, nor had he learned the faith from

them. However, the irony of the situation, from our point of view, is that it is Paul’s ‘gospel’

that has survived and is known to us from his own writings, whereas the ‘gospel’ of the

Jerusalem Christians can only be reconstructed from what may be inferred from Paul’s

references to it and what may be culled, also by inference from the Gospels and Acts. This

apparent triumph of Paul’s version of the faith is surely to be traced to the Jewish overthrow

in A.D. 70....

Johnnie Ellington II

That final sentence is of great importance. Brandon draws a parallel between the esoteric

Jewish community at Qumran whose books were hidden before the community was

destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 68. Those documents are now known as the Dead Sea

Scrolls, and the community which authored them is known almost solely through them.

Recently those very scrolls have been made available to scholars at large, stirring great

hopes for break throughs in our understanding of Judaism at the time of Christ and thus,

early Christian development.

Brandon proposes that the Christian community in Jerusalem, which strongly maintained

its ties to Judaism, was also wiped out by the Romans in A.D. 70, and its documents lost,

as a repercussion of the Jewish uprising there.

The annihilation of the Mother Church of Jerusalem meant that the original leaders of

Jewish-Christianity were killed or dispersed. Also, there must have been a strong political

force encouraging the moving away from Judaism and any traditions which identified a

community as being tied to Judaism. These factors would have greatly aided in the

strengthening and spread of non-Jewish concepts among early Christians. They would

have especially helped the spread of the concept of Jesus’ deification.

Johnnie Ellington II

But first, we need to look more closely at the differences that Paul had with other

followers of Christ. Remember that Paul never met Jesus, nor did he study with the

original apostles. His knowledge of Jesus and his teachings came mostly through

personal inspiration.

Johnnie Ellington II

Paul claimed that his interpretations were not just his own invention, but had come to him by

personal inspiration; he claimed that he had personal acquaintance with the resurrected Jesus,

even though he had never met him during his lifetime. Such acquaintance, he claimed, gained

through visions and transports, was actually superior to acquaintance with Jesus during his

lifetime, when Jesus was much more reticent about his purposes. Clearly!

Johnnie Ellington II

Paul, however good his motivations, could not pass on to us the exact words or

actions of Jesus during the years he taught on earth. He had no way of knowing exactly

what they were.

It is inevitable that he would be in some conflict with those who were actually with Jesus

during those years. Their experiences and their memories of a flesh and blood man would

necessarily be different from the Jesus he knew from his visions.PAUL vs THE SUPER-APOSTLES

There are many indications in Paul’s letters that there were powerful and authoritative

opponents to his teachings. Paul wrote that these opponents were teaching a “gospel other

than the gospel you accepted” and preaching about “another Jesus:”

Johnnie Ellington II

[2 Corinthians 11:3-5].As Paul continues, it is clear that those whom he refers to above as the ‘super-apostles’

are Hebrews whose authority he does not question, but he tries to match their

qualifications with his own: “Since many are bragging about their human distinctions, I

too will boast” (2 Cor. 11:18).