Did the Jerusalem church even preach Jesus Christ?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Did the Jerusalem church even preach Jesus Christ?

Post by John2 »

Regarding what Walker says about Rom. 13 conflicting with 1 Cor. 6:1-8, I don't think the latter is saying that Christians shouldn't obey non-Christian judges or that they aren't appointed by God, but rather not to expose "trivial" and "everyday matters" that Christians may have before non-Christians.

If any of you has a grievance against another, how dare he go to law before the unrighteous instead of before the saints! Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

So if you need to settle everyday matters, do you appoint as judges those of no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Is there really no one among you wise enough to arbitrate between his brothers? Instead, one brother goes to law against another, and this in front of unbelievers!

The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means that you are thoroughly defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, even against your own brothers!

So that objection doesn't work for me.

And Rom. 13 fits with Paul's association with "those from the household of Caesar" in Php. 4:22 ("All the saints send you greetings, especially those from the household of Caesar").
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Did the Jerusalem church even preach Jesus Christ?

Post by davidmartin »

Well, they are presented as being leaders of Jewish Christianity by all accounts, but most importantly by Paul himself in Galatians.
Yes, i think Paul's gospel preserves quite a lot of Jewish Christianity (i may need to explain what i mean by that). Although i've said on here he didn't have a gospel (life/sayings of Jesus) i'm not suggesting the 'false brothers' are somehow the real Christians based on how i read Acts or Galatians. I just suspect a more religious sect and compromising variant (basically a different Gospel) are the 'false brothers' but they were quite powerful and claimed Peter and James if you're right that Peter and James are stuck in the middle. If the Clementine's are their work then they didn't know much about Jesus. I see them as influencing Christianity's development even if they didn't win. I think the early church did partially embrace them thats where the doctrine of hell comes from for example. I just stick to 'the truth is in the middle' which is the least popular theory ever
Post Reply