Verse 17 just says he went to Arabia, it doesn't say what he did there. It's not a slam dunk either way. Paul was a zealous Jew, who was ahead of his years in learning. As Gamecock said in another post, that meant he had A LOT to unlearn once Christianity was revealed to him. Prayer and meditation would be the way to do that. In addition, we don't appear to hear anything else of his time there. If he was preaching, then that seems odd to me since we are given so many other examples of Paul following up lovingly or referring to his other visits during his travels. Again, I'm not declaring absolute fact. It just seems more likely to me that he didn't really start his ministry in earnest until after he returned.
As to "his gospel", Paul says in verse 11 that the gospel he preached is not of man. That would include himself. In addition, Paul said:
2 Cor 11:4 : 4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.
This combined with what I "think" you meant by "his gospel" really puts Paul in quite of a box, doesn't it? As Paul is scolding here, if he really was preaching a different Jesus then are we not required to throw out most of the NT?
FK: "It seems your view would make Paul the most indispensable Apostle. Yet, he appears to be your least favorite."
He was. I don't agree with his alleged solafideism atonement theology (and I would say the Church doesn't either), but as far as his mission for the Church is concerned, thank God for +Paul!
I don't think there is anything alleged about Paul and solafideism. It really is all there, and you appear to acknowledge at least the possibility that it is. Since I would think it would be untenable for the Church to say "We disagree with Paul", then it seems to me that the only option left open to the Church is to say that Paul never said what he said. :)
[The other Apostles] didn't have the vision, style and the resoluteness +Paul had. +Paul realized that in order for the Church to be accepted by the Gentiles, some aspects of Judaism will have to be dispensed with (even though they are protected by God's Laws).
Are you saying that Paul made an executive marketing decision to unilaterally sweep some things under the rug, even though in his extensive education he knew "they were protected by God's Laws"? Was it proper for Paul to do this in your view? What exactly is your assessment of the Jerusalem Council?
The idea that God somehow wanted [the New Covenant] to be shared by the Gentiles is +Pauline in origin (and please don't quote Mat 28, because "all nations" there means all 12 tribes of Israel, not all nations of the world, as Christ even so mentioned abolishing circumcision, or dietary laws).
Well, if you believe that Christ was only speaking to the Apostles at the end of Matt. 28, then I suppose it makes sense that you think "all nations" only meant the 12 Tribes. Do you think Jesus never spoke of saving Gentiles? How do you interpret this:
John 10:15-16 : 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
Or how about the centurion (Matt. 8:5-10)? How could Paul have invented this if Jesus talked about it before Paul even knew who Jesus was?
Concensus patrum does not teach Pauline atonement doctrine, nor sola fide. The Creed does not contain atonement doctrine either.
To my knowledge, this is exactly correct.
+Pauline role and accomplishment in saving the Church is one thing; his theology and doctrine is another. I don't think the Church would ever admit it, but the role of +Paul in the liturgical life is very clearly distinct from that of the Apostles who wrote the Gospels. The homily is always based on the Gospel and not on the Epistle. These are very subtle facts that say a lot.
Well, I can understand why the Gospels would be STRONGLY emphasized in any Christian faith. But, I don't really take this as any slight to Paul. If I could only take 4 books of the Bible to a desert island, one of them would be Romans. It might well be that not all Reformers would agree with me, but I think a whole bunch of them would. Do you think the vast majority of Orthodox would disagree with me?
Verse 17 just says he went to Arabia, it doesn't say what he did there.
It is implied in verse 16, but I agree that it is ambiguous (as are many of his verses). That's why i say that reading +Paul is like eating fish with lots of bones — tiresome.
As to "his gospel", Paul says in verse 11 that the gospel he preached is not of man
"In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." (Rom 2:16)
"Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ" (Rom 16:25)
Not only does he speak of his gospel, but his statements sound very Gnostic here.
Yes, it does. And so does his statement "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," (1 Cor 1:17)
Apparently he was not aware of Matthew 28:19
depends on which part of the NT you choose to believe, since the account of this 'Council' are not identical.
However, I do believe that he initiated it issue. In effect, they did break God's Laws when they dispensed with circumcision. removal of dietary restrictions was 'justified'with an account of +Peter's 'vision,' while in some sort of a "trans," of God allowing it. In doing so, the Church created a new religion, with +Paul as its author. We could argue that this was the religion the Jews should have been following all along, but that's another story.
By asserting that God did not fully reveal Himself to the Jews, we can assert that Christianity is only a "more perfect" (I am borrowing this oxymoron from a very famous state document) form of the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But, that's not why God told the prophet He would give a New Covenant.
Rather, the New Covenant was to replace the Old Covenant made imperfect by the unbelieving Jews. There was no hint of any "foreshadowing" in that promise.
My assessment is that it convened over a disagreement among people who were supposed to be inspired, which troubles me. In particular, the dispute arouse between +James and +Paul. One can argue that Halakah was not firmly established yet. Regardless, whether it was or not, Christians in Israel considered themselves Jewish, worshiped in accordance with Judaism, followed Judaic customs and habits.
I just think it's curious that +Peter's 'vision' (under 'trans') is described in Acts 11, and the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. Coincidence, or neatly packaged sequence of events? I don't know. It is +Paul who speaks of rebuking +Peter for 'living like a Gentile," yet expecting Gentiles to live like the Jews. So, the dispute +Paul had was with more than just +James, although one has to dig a little to find this.
It was +Paul who (together with +Barnabas, and apparently Titus, an uncicumsised Greek), but under +Paul's initiative, who argued that circumcision, "Jewish baptism," can be dispensed with! This is equivalent to someone telling you that one doe snot have to be baptized to become a Christian. I don't know about Protestants, but the Orthodox Church would not consider those people Christian even if their theology was identical to the EO theology (save for Baptism). So, in effect, +Paul was arguing to introduce something that was fundamentally against the Jewish Law.
[NB: the book of Acts shows significant difference depending on which version of the Bible is used; the 5th century Alexandrian version is the one used primarily in the West; the Eastern version is reflected in the 4th century AD Codex Sinaticus. The accounts surrounding the Council of Jerusalem are not identical in those versions]
After +Peter spoke (in words that sound very Pauline to me), +James basically invoked the laws of Noah. But the earliest account of the so-called Council in Jerusalem comes from +Paul. It states that he came to Jerusalem to "lay before them the gospel (he) proclaimed among the Gentiles" (Gal 2:2)! He also claims that this was a "private meeting," and not a Council. According to +Paul's own writing, the three 'pillars' of the Church, +Peter, +John and +James, agreed with him and offered him "fellowship," and and sent him to preach to the uncircumcised, asking him only to remember the "poor of Jerusalem."
So, to answer your question, I think there are a lot of different angles and versions to this, compounded by different copies purporting to be the 'originals.' These e accounts speak of different times, persons, size of the meeting, people ("pharisees who believed"), conclusions, etc. All this somehow seems a little made up to me. The book of Acts, which was written after +Paul's death, differs from +Paul's version in Galatians, and exists in western and eastern versions, both of which differ significantly.
But one thing is clear: the purpose of the account in the so-called 'Council' of Jerusalem was to provide scriptural 'justification' initiated by +Paul to dispense with God's Laws given to Moses so as "not to burden" the Gentiles when Christ never explicitly or implicitly gave such permission or even mentioned such a possibility. Then comes +Peter's 'vision' in a 'trance' a few chapters earlier, just in time for the Council in Acts 15, and a very seemingly choreographed account of that meeting.
First, Christ did speak to the Apostles only when He was teaching. Other sheep refers to other Semitic people, the Phoenicians, the Canaanites, and other Jewish tribes. The word "people" really means clans. The Greek word fulh in the NT refers to the descendants of Jacob, not Gentiles.
Or how about the centurion (Matt. 8:5-10)?
In the context, the centurion converted to Judaism, not some new religion called Christianity. Nothing stops the Gentiles from embracng Judaism. Christ however, never taught that Judaism needs to be modified, by breaking God's Laws, in order to accommodate the Gentiles.
If I could only take 4 books of the Bible to a desert island, one of them would be Romans. It might well be that not all Reformers would agree with me, but I think a whole bunch of them would. Do you think the vast majority of Orthodox would disagree with me?
I am not sure.