Re: No Christology in the Q community
Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:43 pm
to robert j
"Luke" could have embellished as saying the early members of the church of Jerusalem were called Christians but did not. But she did, later when the members of church of Antioch, led by non-eyewitnesses of the public life of Jesus, were called that way. So I have no reason to doubt "Luke" on that point.
Beside Acts, that cannot be demonstrated in Paul's letters.
Oops, I think I miss what you were after. Which is: who were these preachers who worked on Paul's converts in Galatia? For sure, they were intend to make these converts practice the whole Law of Moses, maybe up to the point of circumcision. However, I do not see Paul arguing in Galatians that these preachers did not accept Jesus as Christ. So they were most likely Jewish Christians.
Cordially, Bernard
I do not think that Acts is all about later legend and traditions. Some fiction? sure. Many enbellishments? certainly. But some elements of Acts fit well with Galatians & the 2 Corinthians epistles (as long as they are uncombined).Without resorting to the later legends and traditions promoted in Acts of the Apostles --- using only Paul’s letters --- can you demonstrate that?
"Luke" could have embellished as saying the early members of the church of Jerusalem were called Christians but did not. But she did, later when the members of church of Antioch, led by non-eyewitnesses of the public life of Jesus, were called that way. So I have no reason to doubt "Luke" on that point.
Beside Acts, that cannot be demonstrated in Paul's letters.
Oops, I think I miss what you were after. Which is: who were these preachers who worked on Paul's converts in Galatia? For sure, they were intend to make these converts practice the whole Law of Moses, maybe up to the point of circumcision. However, I do not see Paul arguing in Galatians that these preachers did not accept Jesus as Christ. So they were most likely Jewish Christians.
Cordially, Bernard