WI Council of Jerusalem adopts St. Peter's views in 50 AD?

Because Acts contradicts the picture we get from archaeology and the historical record, which shows a much more diverse and contradictory set of early Christian sects than is described in that book. It also doesn't withstand a critical textual analysis:

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Seminars/acts_seminar.html

Historical texts always have to be taken with a grain of salt and supplemented with reference to other texts and archaelogy. So what? None of these other sources give us reason to believe that the council in Jerusalem did not happen, unless a sort of anti-Christian faith impels you to automatically discount historical documents to which Christians give religious significance.

The Westar Institute is the Jesus Seminar, which is hardly an objective source.
 

Skokie

Banned
What makes the Jesus Seminar an all-authoritative source of archeaological and historical truth?

Fine. Don't take their word for it. Educate yourself about the Nag Hammadi texts. You'll quickly see that the picture painted in Acts is a little too politically correct and that reality was much messier. Early Christians came in many, many forms.
 
Fine. Don't take their word for it. Educate yourself about the Nag Hammadi texts. You'll quickly see that the picture painted in Acts is a little too politically correct and that reality was much messier. Early Christians came in many, many forms.

I have; so what? Your argument is tangential at best to the original WI of this thread.
 
Fine. Don't take their word for it. Educate yourself about the Nag Hammadi texts. You'll quickly see that the picture painted in Acts is a little too politically correct and that reality was much messier. Early Christians came in many, many forms.


So there may have been other groups beside Peter's followers and Paul's - but what of it?

All that proves is that Acts is not the whole truth. It doesn't mean that the disagreement over the circumcision issue didn't happen. In fact, given that Christianity started as a Jewish offshoot, I don't really see how it could have avoided happening.
 
So there may have been other groups beside Peter's followers and Paul's - but what of it?

All that proves is that Acts is not the whole truth. It doesn't mean that the disagreement over the circumcision issue didn't happen. In fact, given that Christianity started as a Jewish offshoot, I don't really see how it could have avoided happening.

I agree that in the early days of the church christians formed various groups sometimes with completely different theology from the original Apostolic theology... But if a scenario happens in which we have a Petrine and a Pauline Church then we are talking about a schism in the original quorum of 12 Apostles and thats what makes this scenario different...
 

Skokie

Banned
I agree that in the early days of the church christians formed various groups sometimes with completely different theology from the original Apostolic theology...

Do we even know what the "original" Apostolic theology was? Why should we treat that account that was preserved by the orthodox/catholic Church as History when we know there were rival schools who disagreed?
 
Why should we treat that account that was preserved by the orthodox/catholic Church as History when we know there were rival schools who disagreed?

What 'rival schools' disagreed about the council in Jerusalem, pray tell?

200 years from now, historians will read contemporary texts that differ widely in their interpretations and even in their facts concerning Presidents Bush and Obama. Therefore they never existed, right?
 

Skokie

Banned
What 'rival schools' disagreed about the council in Jerusalem, pray tell?

Good God, man. Read Elaine Pagels. There were "gnostics" and all sorts of other Christians and semi-Christians.

200 years from now, historians will read contemporary texts that differ widely in their interpretations and even in their facts concerning Presidents Bush and Obama. Therefore they never existed, right?

Nonsense. There would be reams and reams of writing and other, physical artifacts alluding to the existence of Obama and Bush.

The council of Jerusalem, however, only appears in a work of pseudo-history. The only reason why we treat it as history is because of people's Christian faith.
 
The council of Jerusalem, however, only appears in a work of pseudo-history. The only reason why we treat it as history is because of people's Christian faith.


So what are you saying? That there was no dispute over whether Gentile converts needed to be circumcised or not? Given that the early Christians were largely Jews, that seems distinctly unlikely. And Jerusalem would seem as likely a place as any to hold a conflab about it.

This is beginning to remind me of the dispute about whether the Odyssey was written by Homer or by another Greek of the same name.
 
Good God, man. Read Elaine Pagels. There were "gnostics" and all sorts of other Christians and semi-Christians.



Nonsense. There would be reams and reams of writing and other, physical artifacts alluding to the existence of Obama and Bush.

The council of Jerusalem, however, only appears in a work of pseudo-history. The only reason why we treat it as history is because of people's Christian faith.

Well Socrates didnt left any written or any other physical evidence too... According to what u say he didnt existed too...
 

Skokie

Banned
Well Socrates didnt left any written or any other physical evidence too... According to what u say he didnt existed too...

Yes and no. It means that we can't take his existence for granted. It's not up to historians to prove that someone didn't exist; rather, simply, to question traditional histories and see if they fit the available evidence.
 

Skokie

Banned
So what are you saying? That there was no dispute over whether Gentile converts needed to be circumcised or not? Given that the early Christians were largely Jews, that seems distinctly unlikely. And Jerusalem would seem as likely a place as any to hold a conflab about it.

This is beginning to remind me of the dispute about whether the Odyssey was written by Homer or by another Greek of the same name.

What I'm saying in my prickly, persnickety way is, basically, this is a speculative/theological question not a historical one.

Real historical WIs regarding Christian theology ought to come with better evidence, like the records we have of the ecumenical councils.
 
Yes and no. It means that we can't take his existence for granted. It's not up to historians to prove that someone didn't exist; rather, simply, to question traditional histories and see if they fit the available evidence.

Socrates teaching was given to us through the works of Plato... so if he existed then we can take his reference and say that Socrates existed or the council of jerusalem did happened because acts discuss about it... If Socrates didnt existed then Plato lied and for 2500 years we were talking about a hoax... Which one is right?

P.S. Holy Tradition doesnt count? As i ve said above St. Irinaeus of Lyon said that "If Apostles dint left us anything written we have to rely in Tradition" plus the form of Ecumenical Synods were based in this Apostolic Synod... And if it wasnt the book of Acts to mention it tradition would... so it is verified in both sources... scripture and tradition...
 

Skokie

Banned
Socrates teaching was given to us through the works of Plato... so if he existed then we can take his reference and say that Socrates existed or the council of jerusalem did happened because acts discuss about it... If Socrates didnt existed then Plato lied and for 2500 years we were talking about a hoax... Which one is right?

Are we sure that Plato wasn't being ironic or using Socrates as a sockpuppet? He was Plato, after all.

P.S. Holy Tradition doesnt count? As i ve said above St. Irinaeus of Lyon said that "If Apostles dint left us anything written we have to rely in Tradition" plus the form of Ecumenical Synods were based in this Apostolic Synod... And if it wasnt the book of Acts to mention it tradition would... so it is verified in both sources... scripture and tradition...

Holy Tradition counts only if you already subscribe to the Orthodox/Catholic Christian faith. It's a self-contained system.

If you look at the available evidence more objectively (including the Nag Hammdi texts and the critical tradition of Biblical scholarship), you get a much obscurer picture of the history of early Christianity, one that contradicts Luke-Acts.
 
Good God, man. Read Elaine Pagels. There were "gnostics" and all sorts of other Christians and semi-Christians.

Good God, man. Why should I read Elaine Pagels when you can't even read me?

Here's my point: the existence of gnostics does not refute or even call into question the historicity of the counsel of Jerusalem, because these sects did not produce alternate accounts of the counsel. Elaine Pagels does not dispute its historicity. Neither should anyone who isn't a 'bright' or some kind of internet missionary for the church of disliking christianity.

Grind that axe, buddy.

Out.
 

Skokie

Banned
Elaine Pagels does not dispute its historicity.

"According to Christian legend, the early church was different. Christians of every persuasion look back to the primitive church to find a simpler, purer form of Christian faith. In the apostles' time, all members of the Christian community shared the money and property; all believed the same teaching, and worshiped together; all revered the authority of the apostles. It was only after that golden age that conflict, then heresy emerged: so says the author of the Acts of the Apostles, who identifies himself as the first historian of Christianity. But the discoveries at Nag Hammadi have upset this picture. If we admit that some of these fifty-two texts represent early forms of Christian teaching, we may have to recognize that early Christianity is far more diverse than nearly anyone expected before the Nag Hammadi discoveries. (Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, p. xxii)"

Grind that axe, buddy.

Out.

Right back at you.
 
Nag hammadi is a collection of gnostic texts and nothing more... we cannot rely on them to learn about Apostolic christianity since they were wrtten propably after 180 AD... And as scholars point out their most famous book the Gospel of Thomas is a bad copy of the "Diatessaron" and propably altered by Manichaists for their own "liturgical" use as Theofilus of Alexandria and the Decretum Gelasianum say...
 
Back to the point of this thread, it's amazing that nobody so far has mentioned that the New Testament contains two contradictory statements about this Council:

  • In the Acts, the two factions arrange with each other about the issue and come up with a compromise: Converts need not hold all Jewish regulations, but they do have to stick to (roughly) the Laws of Noah, i.e. the minimum requirement of Pagans to be allowed contact with Jews.
  • Paul himself claims that "nothing has been imposed on him" in this issue.
    Moreover, his self-reported provocation of taking an uncircumcised convert there with him does not seem as fraternal as the description in the Acts.


As these are the only accounts we have of this event, a serious historian would accept the points where these reports agree:
- Because of Paul's urging, the question was discussed in Jerusalem.
- The conservative Jewish position ("Peter") was defeated.
- Basically, the baptizing of pagans was endorsed to continue, at least almost as before.

For the rest, it is impossible to tell whether Paul should really have convinced the Christians of Jerusalem, or if they just made concessions to silence him.
One likely course of events would be Paul being right in the point that no (explicit) restrictions were made, and the author of the Acts (*Luke) not describing what has happened, but showing an example how he thinks conflicts should be handled within the Church. This would be backed by the fact that we have no evidence of the Laws of Noah being taught to Hellenistic Christians.
 
Top