[Mad Dawg]

By “Apostolic Church”in that post I meant the Church between the Ascension and the death of the last of the Apostles.

Some posit this “perfect” Church gathered at the mountain from which our Lord ascended. And pretty much everything is downhill from there.

Or, a modification of that notion is that the Church was really good until sometime after the death of the last apostle and, say, the Edict of Milan.

That is not my view.

Another view is that Acts and the Epistles present a body in conflict, with enemies without and dissension within. So many of Paul’s letters either directly address dissension or speak about how to address it. His most important and beautiful passages are side-by-side with appeals for unity.

Confronting these internal and external challenges, and guided by the Spirit, the Church slowly organizes itself into a structure able to deal with these challenges and to preserve the Gospel and unfold (which is the meaning of “develop”) the meaning of the Gospel in response to questions and challenges.

This view also depends on a reading of Scripture.

So in this view, Paul’s conversion and call, the subsequent conflicts with Peter (including both “the right hand of fellowship” and “I rebuked him to his face,”), AND the resolution of the conflicts by reaching a settlement in a council and sending Paul abroad represent PART of a Spirit-guided trend.

In this connection, I would note that Paul did not question Peter’s TEACHING, but accused him of ACTING like a wussy. This certainly is a part of the “trend”. Centuries later Catherine of Sienna (a lay Dominican) told the then pope to man up and quit acting like a wimp (with language almost that strong)!

I want to stress that this reading of the early Church also thinks it depends on Scripture. So we have conflicting interpretations of the passages from Galatians. If I may put it this way, you seem to say, “Look here. This shows my point is correct.”

And I’m saying, “Hold on a minute. Not so fast. There’s a whole big Bible out there and an official account (Acts) as well as other parts of this and other letters which may shed some light on this.”

[smvoice]

Paul leaves no one in doubt as to what he is saying. There is no interpretation to be made. He states clearly that the gospel which he preached was a direct revelation of Christ, not taught to him by man, nor received of him by man. We can choose to believe Paul or not believe him, but it doesn't change the fact that he states clearly where he received the gospel he preached and from Whom.

And I do agree with you. There is an 'official account'. It is in Chapter 1:11,12.

"But I CERTIFY you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

Acts 15:11 is a fascinating verse, if you are ever bored and wish to see something in a new light, perhaps.