Replies

[ But he also went to Cephas and the other apostles for ratification of his ministry. ]

Dog, Nice post.. But I think you got clergyness on the brain, Paul knew all about clergyness.. he came from that gross error.. You suppose he did this or that for reasons of "commission".. When the boy got his commission from GOD directly.. He needed no verification the others needed verification of his "spirit", and got it.. they were still quite jewish in their thinking..

After considering your post.. I, so far, believe you are spinning the events a certain way when it didt happen that way at all, I think.. I say spinning not in a negative way.. Maybe observing would be a better word.. Anyway Galatians shows Paul fighting against JEWS probably christian Jews spinning christ into jewish law.. and customs (read traditions).. Paul knew jewishness better than them.. that were trying to pervert the Gospel to ceremony and tradition.. much as many prostys try to do.. With varying success I might add..

I can in Galatians see religious jews(probably) trying to inflict clergy ceremony and tradition on the Galatians.. PAUL however, him just being SAVED from all that, reacted beautifully.. SLAPPing all that down..

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

Indeed, Paul was the most educated and religiously zealous of all the apostles .... before Christ opened his eyes.

Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. - Philippians 3:4-7

To God be the glory!

Well, what shall we do, go through it line by line?

Why do you think he mentions the two visits to Cephas, the right hand of fellowship?

And then Acts 15:22 certainly admits, if it does not require, the interpretation that Paul was sent (here it's pempo, not apostello - which is interesting, huh?) by the council.

You're going to love this (not): I think that one simply cannot avoid, the Church cannot avoid having "religious" (and therefore clergy-ish/clerical?) aspects any more than an Incarnate IHS could avoid urination and still be truly human. (Or for a less offensive example, let us not that the evangelist helpfully tells us that after He fasted for 40 days He was "an hungered, yeah Howdy!"

(that particular text rarely makes it out of the archives ....)

Look at how A-G says she's not even non-denominational! (Wouldn't that mean she's denominational? CAN there be a tertium quid) and Paul mentions disparagingly those who claim to be "of Christ". The assertion of an invisible Church is reminiscent to me of docetism, or something in that ball-park. HE wasn't REALLY incarnate ..... The REAL Church couldn't POSSIBLY have the problems that trammel and disgrace the children of men when they get together ....

I think I would venture in this direction - that just as in IHS human nature is transformed, so in Him and in His Spirit the almost (if not entirely) inevitable structures of religion will appear ( but in a transformed way -- guided by the promised Spirit) in His Church.

And, I don't see a contradiction between Paul rebuking Peter to his face and still acknowledging his (alleged by my side) unique place in the ek-klesia.

Gotta go commit idolatry and abase myself before someone who preposterously claims to have been ordained by a successor to the apostles, right after I get finished worshipping Mary by means of vain repetitions.

Thanks for the conversation. YOU GOTTA read the Kittle article, you just gotta!