Mark’s Ending

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

How he says he obtained his knowledge and understanding is irrelevant to the fact that it was still in agreement with what the other Apostles were teaching.
Again, how he says he obtained his knowledge and understanding is irrelevant to the fact that it was still in agreement with what the other Apostles were teaching.

Really?

Paul an apostle—sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities but through Jesus Christ and God the Father

What other biblical accounts of divine revelation are you going to dismiss as "irrelevant"?

The revelation at Sinai? The revelation to Samuel? The revelation to Isaiah? How about the Annunciation?

Why? The simple fact remains that Paul himself says that he went to Jerusalem and laid out his Gospel message to the leaders there so they could see for themselves whether or not his teachings were in accord with theirs.

In Galatians chapter one it is evident that Paul's flock is deserting his teaching:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel

Which he immediately rejects as:

not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

He is referring to his gospel as the only gospel. The one that was divinely revealed to him by the Christ during one of his mystical moments. The one that you have dismissed as "irrelevant ".

Are you going back to your hilarious insistence that the earliest Christian communities were isolated and alone with no communications between them?

Interestingly, all Paul's churches were at a considerable distance from Jerusalem.

That it was impossible for members to travel or even send letters to one another (like Paul was doing)

Evidently some communication/correspondence had taken place hence Paul's concerns.

It is part of a vow that what he is saying is the truth.

Why does he need such an emphatic vow? Who is challenging his veracity? It seems that somebody is.

Scripture Verse: <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=Galatians+2.1-2&amp;t=NIV" target="BLB_NW" rel="NIV.Galatians.2.1-2" class="BLBST_a" style="white-space: nowrap;">Galatians 2:1-2</a>

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain.

© Copyright Original Source

It's just that we also have corroboration of this from Luke in Acts.

The account in Acts is completely different from what Paul writes. According to Acts

For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus, ²⁰ and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.
[...]
After some time had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, ²⁴ but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night so that they might kill him, ²⁵ but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall,^[f] lowering him in a basket.
²⁶ When he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples, and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. ²⁷

In that "historical account" Paul immediately starts preaching with the disciples, he then escapes from the Jews, and goes straight to Jerusalem where he meets the disciples and "they were all afraid of him".

However, in Galatians Paul writes that following his divine revelation:

But when the one^[b] who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace was pleased ¹⁶ to reveal his Son to me,^[c] so that I might proclaim him among the gentiles, I did not confer with any human, ¹⁷ nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterward I returned to Damascus.

¹⁸ Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days, ¹⁹ but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.

Paul makes no mention of any incident on the road. No mention of being blind. No reference to Ananias. No mention of any disciples being in Damascus. No mention of immediately preaching in Damascus and no reference to an escape from the city via a basket.

Paul states quite clearly that he went away into Arabia and then returned to Damascus and that after three years he went to Jerusalem where he stayed with Cephas and saw no other apostle except James.

If your alleged "historical account" in Acts is correct then Paul is wrong and if Paul is correct then Acts is wrong.

[tabibito]

First point of order - where did Paul start from that he could return to Damascus?

[rogue06]

Really?

Paul an apostle—sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities but through Jesus Christ and God the Father

What other biblical accounts of divine revelation are you going to dismiss as "irrelevant"?

The revelation at Sinai? The revelation to Samuel? The revelation to Isaiah? How about the Annunciation?

I guess I'm going to have to type slowly so that you have at least some chance of following along.

It is irrelevant to whether or not Paul's teachings are in agreement with what the other Apostles were teaching. That is the irrelevant part

Can you grasp that?

In Galatians chapter one it is evident that Paul's flock is deserting his teaching:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel

Which he immediately rejects as:

not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.

Grasp at straws much?

This in no way imaginable contradicts the fact that both Paul himself and Luke clearly state that the former went to Jerusalem and laid out his teachings to show there was no conflict.

He is referring to his gospel as the only gospel. The one that was divinely revealed to him by the Christ during one of his mystical moments. The one that you have dismissed as "irrelevant ".

His gospel message was the true gospel message, and that message was in accord with what the other apostles were also teaching.

Interestingly, all Paul's churches were at a considerable distance from Jerusalem.

Could that have something to do with the fact that for the most part there were already Christian communities in the cities closer to Jerusalem, like Antioch, Damascus, Joppa? in fact Acts 9:30 seems to indicate there was already one in his hometown of Tarsus. So Paul had to go out a bit further afield. Now, given how he met other Christian missionaries when he traveled, this was hardly something unique to him -- or maybe you think that he was the one who established Christian communities in northeastern Libya (Cyrene), Crete and Rome? I'll note that both Cyrene and Rome are further from Jerusalem than any of the cities Paul founded churches in.

Evidently some communication/correspondence had taken place hence Paul's concerns.

Did it hurt much finally making that concession? News flash: it wasn't just Paul and his letters.

Why does he need such an emphatic vow?

Different culture, different era.

The account in Acts is completely different from what Paul writes.

While there are differences, one of the things upon which there was no disagreement is that Paul submitted his gospel message in Jerusalem to show that it was the same as what the other Apostles were teaching.

However, in Galatians Paul writes that following his divine revelation:

But when the one^[b] who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace was pleased ¹⁶ to reveal his Son to me,^[c] so that I might proclaim him among the gentiles, I did not confer with any human, ¹⁷ nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterward I returned to Damascus.¹⁸ Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days, ¹⁹ but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother.

Which yet again has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Paul was teaching the same gospel message as were the other Apostles. It is about as relevant to it as Paul being born In Tarsus in Asia Minor rather than in Galilee or other area near to Jerusalem.

That you keep clinging to the nature of Paul's conversion in a discussion regarding whether or not his message was the same as the other Apostles rather strongly suggests that you are unable to find anything showing that their messages were different, as you want everyone to believe.

Paul makes no mention of any incident on the road. No mention of being blind. No reference to Ananias. No mention of any disciples being in Damascus. No mention of immediately preaching in Damascus and no reference to an escape from the city via a basket.

Wake me when you finish with your screed about things that have nothing to do with whether or not Paul's message was the same as the other Apostles.

Paul states quite clearly that he went away into Arabia and then returned to Damascus and that after three years he went to Jerusalem where he stayed with Cephas and saw no other apostle except James.

And? Do you think any of this has anything to do with whether or not Paul's message was the same as the other Apostles?

[tabibito]

2nd point of order: In Galatians, what details does Paul supply about the events surrounding his conversion?
3rd point of order: In the source texts for Galatians, where does Paul make the claim that he went to Arabia immediately or straight away?

[rogue06]

2nd point of order: In Galatians, what details does Paul supply about the events surrounding his conversion?
3rd point of order: In the source texts for Galatians, where does Paul make the claim that he went to Arabia immediately or straight away?

H_A is once again demonstrating her inability to understand that the same events can be described differently depending on what things the person describing them wishes to emphasize at any given time. Both accounts are as H_A adores saying, brief "sweeping generalisations" (dare I say "over-generalisations"?) of "complex events" -- which covered a good bit of time. Therefore it is only natural for them to mention different various things, especially since both authors had different purposes for recounting what took place.

[tabibito]

H_A is once again demonstrating her inability to understand that the same events can be described differently depending on what things the person describing them wishes to emphasize at any given time. Both accounts are as H_A adores saying, brief "sweeping generalisations" (dare I say "over-generalisations"?) of "complex events" -- which covered a good bit of time. Therefore it is only natural for them to mention different various things, especially since both authors had different purposes for recounting what took place.

There seems to be some slight lack of objectivity in H_A's assessment of the passages in question. Those assessments are not hers though - I do believe that they arise with certain PROFESSIONAL theologians.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I guess I'm going to have to type slowly so that you have at least some chance of following along.

It is irrelevant to whether or not Paul's teachings are in agreement with what the other Apostles were teaching. That is the irrelevant part

You are twisting the text.

Paul makes it quite clear that his gospel was received by divine revelation and not from human agency and is the true gospel. We should also remember that Paul's letters were intended to be instructions, correctives, and advice to his proselytes concerning the understanding of the faith as Paul believed it to be.

I would also ask that if, as you contend, the disciples and Paul were all, to use a phrase "singing from the same hymn sheet" why does he write this:

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood self-condemned, ¹² for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction.

What was so different about what the men from James were advocating and his own teaching if, as you allege, they were all preaching the same gospel?

As for that incident of communities receiving correspondence/communication it does not follow that there was regular communication between different groups or with those in Jerusalem. These were hardly Committees of Correspondence.

How are you to to account for the differences in what Paul tells us?

But when the one^[b] who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace was pleased ¹⁶ to reveal his Son to me,^[c] so that I might proclaim him among the gentiles, I did not confer with any human, ¹⁷ nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterward I returned to Damascus.

¹⁸ Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days, ¹⁹ but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother..

And the text of Acts concerning Paul's almost immediate activities following the incident on the road - i.e. his revelation, his apparent blindness, and his stay with Ananias:

For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus, ²⁰ and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.
[...]
After some time had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, ²⁴ but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night so that they might kill him, ²⁵ but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall,^[f] lowering him in a basket.
²⁶ When he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples, and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple.

Or are you going to dismiss those significant disparities in the two texts by your usual facile explanation that different people remember the same incident differently?

Your later comments are all premised on Christian traditions regarding the alleged establishment of Christian groups. As for Rome people from various religious groups lived there, it was a huge city.

Furthermore what you consider to be "churches" in the mid first century constituted no more than small groups of a handful of people. As Paul notes most Christians met in private homes "the church of your house". It therefore follows that the groups were quite small and that they would also have been clandestine, as only a magistrate could call a public meeting. Of course over time the secrecy of Christian meetings either in homes or in secluded or hidden areas led to the usual scurrilous gossip about what they got up to.

Concerning Paul, it comes down to how we view the man. You see him as the man of God and in complete accordance with those who knew the man we call Jesus of Nazareth. I do not.

[tabibito]

4th point of order: Where does Luke claim that having left Damascus, Paul immediately went to Jerusalem?
5th point of order: What text shows that Paul was staying with Ananias?

[tabibito]

What was so different about what the men from James were advocating and his own teaching if, as you allege, they were all preaching the same gospel?

Paul and James were preaching the same message; the men "apo" James were not.


How are you to to account for the differences in what Paul tells us?



And the text of Acts concerning Paul's almost immediate activities following the incident on the road - i.e. his revelation, his apparent blindness, and his stay with Ananias:


Or are you going to dismiss those significant disparities in the two texts by your usual facile explanation that different people remember the same incident differently?


[/QUOTE]

So far it is less a matter of the Bible accounts being in conflict with each other than being in conflict with your (borrowed) interpretations of those accounts.

The men from James were "apo" James - which indicates that they were not acting with James' approval. Had they been acting with James' approval, they would have been "para" or "upo" James.
Peter was criticised for hypocrisy, which indicates that Peter was not acting in accord with his own teaching.
The "conflicts" in Acts and Galatians are records of events at different specific points of time within the same general time frame.

Person A writes, "On the last day before leaving Japan, I was in Kyoto, having arrived on a bullet train. I walked for a time, and a mile or so from the station I happened upon a school band in a rotunda, playing "Suki Yaki" with consummate skill."
Person B writes, "On the last day before leaving Japan, Person A arrived in Kyoto on a local train and proceeded to the "Gakumon no Kamisama" Shinto shrine, about a mile from the station. After spending an hour at the shrine, he moved on to a small coffee shop."

And there you would be, claiming that the accounts are in conflict, and only one of them could possibly be right.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So far it is less a matter of the Bible accounts being in conflict with each other than being in conflict with your (borrowed) interpretations of those accounts.

The men from James were "apo" James - which indicates that they were not acting with James' approval. Had they been acting with James' approval, they would have been "para" or "upo" James.
Peter was criticised for hypocrisy, which indicates that Peter was not acting in accord with his own teaching.
The "conflicts" in Acts and Galatians are records of events at different specific points of time within the same general time frame.

Person A writes, "On the last day before leaving Japan, I was in Kyoto, having arrived on a bullet train. I walked for a time, and a mile or so from the station I happened upon a school band in a rotunda, playing "Suki Yaki" with consummate skill."
Person B writes, "On the last day before leaving Japan, Person A arrived in Kyoto on a local train and proceeded to the "Gakumon no Kamisama" Shinto shrine, about a mile from the station. After spending an hour at the shrine, he moved on to a small coffee shop."

And there you would be, claiming that the accounts are in conflict, and only one of them could possibly be right.

I have made my comments

I will leave you and rogue06 to worry the last bits of gristle from the bone of contention.

[tabibito]

I have made my comments

Having had the obvious flaws in your reasoning pointed out to you, you then say, "I have made my comments."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Having had the obvious flaws in your reasoning pointed out to you, you then say, "I have made my comments."

Who appointed you the ultimate arbiter of these texts?

Your opinions are not articles of faith even if they are pronounced ex cathedra.

[tabibito]

Who appointed you the ultimate arbiter of these texts?

Your opinions are not articles of faith even if they are pronounced ex cathedra.

Obvious flaw is obvious. I fail to see why you think you get to pontificate about the meanings of scripture while denying others the right to give a sound exposition thereof.
The cathedral, if it existed, would be in a little town north of Adelaide, South Australia, on the Port Wakefield Road. I would be the archbishop of Dublin, and the cathedral would be name "St Trinian's."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Obvious flaw is obvious.

Only to you. And once again who made you the ultimate arbiter?

I fail to see why you think you get to pontificate about the meanings of scripture while denying others the right to give a sound exposition thereof.

I have no more "pontificated" [to speak in a pompous or dogmatic manner:] than has your good self.

Nor am I preventing you from continuing the exchange with others of your own persuasion.

[rogue06]

You are twisting the text.

Paul makes it quite clear that his gospel was received by divine revelation and not from human agency and is the true gospel. We should also remember that Paul's letters were intended to be instructions, correctives, and advice to his proselytes concerning the understanding of the faith as Paul believed it to be.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not Paul and the other Apostles were teaching the same gospel message. Nothing. Nada, Zilch.

I would also ask that if, as you contend, the disciples and Paul were all, to use a phrase "singing from the same hymn sheet" why does he write this:

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood self-condemned, ¹² for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction.

Was this before or after Paul went to Jerusalem to submit his gospel? If you ever had actually read the text I wouldn't have to ask.

What was so different about what the men from James were advocating and his own teaching if, as you allege, they were all preaching the same gospel?

Again, was this before or after Paul went to Jerusalem to submit his gospel?

Again, if you had ever troubled yourself to read the text you wouldn't be asking such questions.

As for that incident of communities receiving correspondence/communication it does not follow that there was regular communication between different groups or with those in Jerusalem. These were hardly Committees of Correspondence.

There's that all-or-nothing black and white thinking that you're notorious for.

It isn't like I haven't posted this from Loke previously

It should be noted that the early Christian movement (though geographically widespread) was a network of close communication, the early Christian leaders (which included the apostolic ‘eyewitnesses’) were quite mobile, and it is very probable that Jewish Christians would have travelled yearly to Jerusalem for festivals (Bauckham 2006, pp. 32, 306). Hurtado observes,

A well-attested ‘networking’ was another feature of early Christianity. This involved various activities, among them the sending and exchange of texts, believers travelling for trans-local promotion of their views (as e.g. the 'men from James' in Gal. 2:11, or Apollo's' travels to Corinth in 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:5–9; 16:12), representatives sent for conferral with believers elsewhere (as depicted, e.g. Acts 15:1–35), or sent to express solidarity with other circles of believers (as e.g. those accompanying the Jerusalem offering in 1 Cor. 16:3–4). After all, travel and communication were comparatively well developed in the Roman world generally, among wealthy and a good many ordinary people, for business, pilgrimage to religious sites/occasions, for health, to consult oracles, for athletic events, sightseeing, and other purposes. 'So', as Richard Bauckham observed, 'the context in which the early Christian movement developed was not conducive to parochialism; quite the opposite.' Indeed, in that world of frequent travel and communication, the early Christians particularly seem to have been given to networking, devoting impressive resources of time, money, and personnel to this, and on a wide translocal scale.

(Hurtado 2013, p. 454)

Given these considerations, contacts with the 'eyewitnesses' and hearing the traditional narratives from them would have taken place naturally, and investigative letters would not have been necessary (cf. Carrier 2009).

How are you to to account for the differences in what Paul tells us?

But when the one^[b] who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace was pleased ¹⁶ to reveal his Son to me,^[c] so that I might proclaim him among the gentiles, I did not confer with any human, ¹⁷ nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterward I returned to Damascus.

¹⁸ Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days, ¹⁹ but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother..

And the text of Acts concerning Paul's almost immediate activities following the incident on the road - i.e. his revelation, his apparent blindness, and his stay with Ananias:

For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus, ²⁰ and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.
[...]
After some time had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, ²⁴ but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night so that they might kill him, ²⁵ but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall,^[f] lowering him in a basket.
²⁶ When he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples, and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple.

Or are you going to dismiss those significant disparities in the two texts by your usual facile explanation that different people remember the same incident differently?

Aside from this yet again having ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT PAUL AND THE OTHER APOSTLES TAUGHT THE SAME GOSPEL MESSAGE I addressed this in much response to Tab directly above.

Your later comments are all premised on Christian traditions regarding the alleged establishment of Christian groups. As for Rome people from various religious groups lived there, it was a huge city.

Did you dream this up after realizing you had nothing to rebut it with?

The fact is that there were Christian communities in these areas in the first century and they weren't established by Paul. In his letter to the Romans Paul even introduces himself to the church already established there.

Of course, if you had ever bothered to read what you seek to criticize, you would have known that.

Furthermore what you consider to be "churches" in the mid first century constituted no more than small groups of a handful of people. As Paul notes most Christians met in private homes "the church of your house". It therefore follows that the groups were quite small and that they would also have been clandestine, as only a magistrate could call a public meeting. Of course over time the secrecy of Christian meetings either in homes or in secluded or hidden areas led to the usual scurrilous gossip about what they got up to.

And? You say this like there was a point in there somewhere. Nobody was saying that they had established cathedrals.

Concerning Paul, it comes down to how we view the man. You see him as the man of God and in complete accordance with those who knew the man we call Jesus of Nazareth. I do not.

It comes down to what the record clearly reveals. Both Paul and Luke state that Paul went to Jerusalem to set his gospel before the leaders there to show they were teaching the same message.

Again from Loke:

Paul recognized the authority of the Jerusalem church to validate—or even to invalidate—his gospel (Gal. 2:2), and assumed the legitimacy of Jerusalem leaders (e.g. 1 Cor. 3:22 and 9:5) (Hill 2007). Given the centrality of Jesus’ resurrection for Paul, all these would not have been the case if the Jerusalem saints, the ‘more than five hundred brethren,’ held to a view on Jesus’ resurrection that was contrary to Paul’s. Thus, the evidence for thinking that Paul proclaimed the same gospel concerning Jesus Christ (even though he voiced disagreements about other matters) implies that Paul’s view concerning the resurrection is also the view of the Jerusalem Christians led by members of the Twelve