From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Rich men and Heaven
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:59:37 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <ksand-151092191208@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>In article <71390@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard
>Pitts) wrote:
>> 
>> In article <ksand-141092195330@wintermute.apple.com> ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik) writes:
>> |> |culture. Meanwhile Paul gathered more forces and took control from
>> |> |the disciples themselves (!).
>> |> 
>> |> Give some references for this, please.
>> |
>> |Read Acts.
>> 
>> I have - enlighten me - give me a chapter and hopefully a verse,
>> so I can see to what you are referring.
>
>Gladly, the following entry is let us say the story of Acts described
>in four pages, I wrote it one night when I tried to figure out what 
>Acts really described in forms of historical events. I know, it's biased
>concerning my views of what happened, and it was an attempt to somehow
>get to the real story behind the original church of Jerusalem and 
>Paul, a really intriguing story, indeed. Warning, this is a long entry.

Again, I am given no slack for quoting scriptures, but Kent himself willingly
summarizes the book of Acts - why can't I do so????

>------------------
>
>It seems that reading Acts is in many cases a very much Christian activity,

Acts is understood as the "Acts of the Apostles" - it was written by Luke
and was the second part of his writings - the first was the book of Luke.

>where certain passages and doctrines are far more important than the
>underlying flow of history. I have tried to describe the life of Paul using

The book of Acts is seen by many as a historical book and not a doctrinal 
book, for it records the ACTIONS (Acts) of the early church.  The argument
between Paul and Barnabus is certainly not a model for us to follow, but
it was recorded as one of the actions, as was the episode of the two who
died for lying to the Holy Spirit about the price for which they sold 
their house.  Other books teach doctrine straight forwardly, but Acts tells
us what happened.

>Acts and his letters as part  of the historical source - unfortunately the
>Biblical sources are very much biased towards Paul and his ideas. However

The first eight (8) chapters out of the twenty-eight (28) chapters do not
mention Paul.  Peter was the primary character for chapters 1-15.  Paul
came on the scene and was the one (practically the only one) who went out
from the main group and so spread the gospel to the Gentiles, as Jesus
said the chruch should do and as Jesus called Paul to do.

>by objectively reading the Acts and mapping events to a historical view one
>should clearly see what was going on both in front and behind the scenes. 

Ok.

>This story is about the original Church, the original disciples, and a

Agreed.

>newcomer to the play field, Paul, a former headhunter working for the

Paul was not tricked he was called - he was so feared that he would
have most likely been killed, if he had hung around Jerusalem.  Even
Ananias, the guy to whom Jesus independently gave confirmation of Paul's 
conversion in Acts 9, was afraid to go to Paul, but Jesus said Paul
was to be his messenger to the Gentiles and so Ananias went.

>enemy, suddenly becoming the first TV-evangelist. Stay tuned for a good
>story!

It is a good story.

>The Acts constitutes the definite account of the first years of early
>Christianity. It is heavily biased, however, but it's more of a personal
>bias than a church based one. Acts, unlike the Gospels, tries to be a form
>of chronicle over a continuous and extended period of time.

Agreed, except for what you mean by heavily biased.

>The narrative in Acts begins shortly after the Crucifixion. The author of
>Acts is most likely a well educated Greek who identifies himself as Luke.
>It is also written specifically for a Greek audience. Although focusing
>primarily on Paul, Acts also tells the story of Paul's relations with the

It focuses on the church - Peter was a big player as was Paul as were the
other disciples.  The first several chapters give some powerful evidence
of the disciples and apostles proclaiming the gospel with power.

>community in Jerusalem composed of Jesus' immediate disciples under the
>leadership of James (now regarded as the early or original Church). Acts
>only offers Paul's point of view - or Acts is essentially a document of
>Pauline Christianity - Paul is the hero, whoever opposes him. Anyone who
>opposes him, authorities or James himself, is automatically cast as
>villain.

Oh.  Let's look at this.  Paul submitted to the church.  When the
question of circumcision became a problem, Paul AND Barnabus and others
went to the chruch in Jerusalem to find out what to tell the people.
Paul didn't make the decision, but was a messenger - the others decided.

>Acts first describes the organization and development of the community of
>the early Church in Jerusalem and its increasing friction with the
>authorities. For instance, Acts 2:44:46:
>"The faithful all lived together and owned everything in common; they sold
>their goods and possession and shared out the proceeds among themselves
>according to what each one needed. They went as a body to the Temple every
>day but met in their houses for the breaking of bread..."
>If is of notice that the disciplines still followed the religion of Judaism
>by regularly attending the Temple ceremonies. Later we will see that even
>Paul did this.
>
>After the death of Stephen (the first Christian martyr) Paul enters the
>scene, first as Saul of Tarsus. He is said to have stood watch over the
>discarded clothes of Stephen's murderers - eventually taking an even more
>active role, this because in Acts 8:1 we are told that Saul entirely
>approved of the killing of Stephen. Later, in Acts 9:21, Paul is accused of
>engineering an attack on the early Church. In Acts 8:3 we are told that
>Paul worked for the total destruction of the Church: he went from house to
>house arresting both men and women and sending them to prison. We get a
>picture of a very emotional and harsh man.

This is true before Saul encountered the Lord on the road to Damascus.
The comment in Acts 9:21, was in reponse to Paul's former record and
how it was reported that he was not procliaming the faith he tried to destory.

>Acts 9 tells us suddenly of the conversion of Paul. After Stephen's death,
>he embarks for Damascus or to Syria to ferret out members of the early
>Church over there. Note that he is accompanied by his hit-squad bearing
>arrest warrants from the high priest. En route Paul undergoes some sort of
>a traumatic experience - Christians calling it a vision - which could be
>interpreted anything from a sunstroke to an epileptic seizure, or a
>mystical revelation. A light from heaven knocks him from the horse, issuing

oh.

>from no perceptible source, demanding "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting
>me?". The voice identifies himself as Jesus, the Nazorene. Furthermore, the
>voice instructs him to proceed to Damascus, where he will learn what he
>must do. He is also temporarily stricken blind, and a member by the early
>Church will restore his sight, and also baptize Paul. This whole episode
>would for a psychologist be a normal case study of a hysterical, or
>psychotic reaction, or what I personally think most likely the guilty
>conscience of a man who had Christian blood on this hands.

Oh - it seems that you are biased against supernatural activities.

You might want to note that this member of the early church was called
independently by God and was told to go and meet Paul (Saul) at a
specific place.  This church member (Ananias) was told in his vision
that Paul would be the Lord's messenger to the Gentiles.

>Now things will get interesting! Paul interprets this episode as a true
>manifestation of Jesus, even if he didn't know personally. He becomes a
>fervent promoter of teachings of the early Church. According to his letter
>to Galatians (Gal 1:17-18) he remains under their tutorship for three
>years. After this, Paul returns to Jerusalem to join the leaders of the
>community . Not surprisingly, most of them are suspicious of this suddenly
>converted former enemy. In Galatians 1:18-20 Paul states that he only saw
>James and Cephas. Everyone else, including the apostles, seems to have
>avoided him. He is obliged to prove himself, and only after this does he
>find allies and he begins to preach. Arguments are still in the air, and
>according to Acts 9:29 certain members of the Jerusalem community threatens
>him. Due to this suddenly ugly situation, his allies send him off to Tarsus
>(the town where he was born).  This was really equivalent to exile, because
>most of the action happened really in Jerusalem. 

The non-Christian Jews were the ones plotting to kill Paul, and so the
Christian church leaders got Paul out of the way.

>The wider world, such as Rome, was relevant only to the extent that it
>barely expanded on the early disciples more localized reality. Anyway,
>sending him out from Jerusalem would have been the same as a mafia
>godfather sending an ill-disciplined and energetic recruit to collect money
>from the gangs in Harlem. If Paul would succeed, fine, if he would fail, he
>would not have been missed by the original church.

I think you are a little over eager to comment.  Paul was called to
go to the Gentiles, as was the church, but some "prompting" proved useful
for the advancement of the gospel, for the church, including for Paul.

>Anyway, Paul's adventures carries him to Antioch - some five or more years
>later, Paul is teaching in Antioch when a dispute arises over the content
>of his missionary work. As Act 15 describes, certain representatives of the
>leadership in Jerusalem arrives in Antioch, maybe to check out Paul's

Maybe???????????? - You added a little commentary, didn't you?

See verses below:  These men came and were teaching that circumcision was
required for salvation.

>activities. They stress the strict importance of adherence to the Jewish
>Law and accuses Paul of laxity. He and his companion, Barnabas, are
>summarily ordered back to Jerusalem for personal consultation with the

No - they went and were not ordered - they were sent as messengers.

    Acts 15:1-4 (NIV)   Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and 
    were teaching the brothers: "Unless you are circumcised, according 
    to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." {2} This brought 
    Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul 
    and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go 
    up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 
    {3} The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through 
    Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. 
    This news made all the brothers very glad. {4} When they came to 
    Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and 
    elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. 

>leadership. From this point - a schism will open and widen between Paul and
>James. The Acts now also becomes apologist for Paul.

If Paul was supreme as you imply, why did he go back to Jerusalem????

>Hang on, this will be even more fun! It seems that Paul is the first
>Christian heretic, and later his teachings - which are the foundation of
>today's Christianity - are a flagrant deviation from the original or pure
>form defined by the leadership and Jesus himself. James was either Jesus'
>brother, or knew him personally. So did also more of the other leaders of
>the original church, including Peter. When they spoke, the did so with
>first-hand authority. Paul had never spoken with Jesus - the person he
>started to regard as his 'Savior'. All he had was this 'mystical'

Much less Paul summarized his position between Jesus the Lord and himself
as a servant.

    2 Corinthians 4:5 (NIV)   For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus             Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 

God is referred to in the OT as Savior and in the NT, in addition to
Paul, we see other calling Jesus the Savior, as well as saying God is 
the Savior:

Luke records it of one in the temple and of the angel:

    Luke 1:47 (NIV)   and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 

    Luke 2:11 (NIV)   Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to 
    you; he is Christ the Lord. 

John records it:

    John 4:42 (NIV)   They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just 
    because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know 
    that this man really is the Savior of the world." 

Peter preachs it in Acts:

    Acts 5:31 (NIV)   God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and 
    Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. 

Again it is preached it in Acts:

    Acts 13:23 (NIV)   "From this man's descendants God has brought to 
    Israel the Savior Jesus, as he promised. 

Peter says it many times:

    2 Peter 1:1 (NIV)   Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To 
    those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have 
    received a faith as precious as ours: 

    2 Peter 1:11 (NIV)   and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal 
    kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 

    2 Peter 2:20 (NIV)   If they have escaped the corruption of the world by 
    knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and 
    overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 

    2 Peter 3:2 (NIV)   I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the
    holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your 
    apostles. 

    2 Peter 3:18 (NIV)   But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and 
    Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen. 

As does John affirm it:

    1 John 4:14 (NIV)   And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent 
    his Son to be the Savior of the world. 



>experience in the desert and the sound of a voice. It was very hard for him
>to arrogate authority to himself on the basis of this. It lead him also to
>distort Jesus' teachings beyond all recognition. He started to formulate
>his own highly individual and idiosyncratic theology, and then finally
>legimitizing  it by *spuriously* ascribing it to Jesus.

Again, I think you have thorwn in a little commetary.  Give some specific
problems. 

>For Jesus, who adhered rigorously to the Judaic Law, this would have been
>the most extreme blasphemy to advocate worship of a moral figure, including
>himself. For instance, in Gospels Jesus urges his disciples and followers
>to acknowledge only God. John 10:33-5, Jesus is accused of the blasphemy of

Correct - acknowledge only God - If you notice that Jesus was worshiped
and the people were not rebuked, whereas, the angel in Revelation rebuked
John for worshipping himself.  He said worship God.

    Matthew 2:2 (NIV)   and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king 
    of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him." 

    Matthew 2:11 (NIV)   On coming to the house, they saw the child with his 
    mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their 
    treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh. 

    Matthew 14:33 (NIV)   Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying,
    "Truly you are the Son of God." 

    Matthew 28:9 (NIV)   Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They 
    came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 

    Luke 24:52 (NIV)   Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with 
    great joy. 

    John 9:38 (NIV)  Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him. 
    Acts 24:14 (NIV)   However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers 
    as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything 
    that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, 

    Hebrews 1:6 (NIV)   And again, when God brings his firstborn into the 
    world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." 

    Revelation 7:11 (NIV)   All the angels were standing around the throne 
    and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on 
    their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 

    Revelation 11:16 (NIV)   And the twenty-four elders, who were seated on 
    their thrones before God, fell on their faces and worshiped God, 

    Revelation 14:7 (NIV)   He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give him 
    glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the 
    heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water." 

    Revelation 19:10 (NIV)   At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But 
    he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your 
    brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the 
    testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." 

    Revelation 22:8 (NIV)   I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things.
    And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of 
    the angel who had been showing them to me. 
    Revelation 22:9 (NIV)   But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow 
    servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep 
    the words of this book. Worship God!" 

>claiming to be God. He replies, "It is not written in your law, I said, you
>are Gods? so the law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God
>was addressed". Thus there's no mentioning at all that his is God's son, or
>that he belongs to a holy trinity.

Nor is there a denial of such.  Thomas worship Jesus and said TO HIM 
"My Lord and My God". (John 20:28)  See above scriptures.

>Paul transformed the figure of Jesus to a form of an Adonis figure, or
>Tammuz, or Attis, or any of the ancient dying and reviving gods who were
>part of the mystery and religious cults of ancient Middle East. In order to

And how do you get this transforming idea - Jesus died and rose from 
the dead once and for all - see the gospels.

>compete against these other gods, Jesus had to match them point for point,
>miracle for miracle. There was  a need for virgin births, resurrections,
>miracles and doctrines. These were essentially inventions by Paul, and
>often wildly at odds with the pure Jewish doctrine defined by the early
>Church. It was not surprising that James and the others were disturbed by
>Paul's teachings.

I thought you said Paul was at the center of these ideas - do you propose
that Paul wrote the gospels and all of the NT??????????????
The doctrines you attribute to Paul are in the gospels.

>This starts to sound like a political thriller. Paul knew all the long what
>he achieved. He understands the tricks of religious propaganda, and he knew
>how to turn a religious leader into a god. He does not pretend he knew the
>historical Jesus, the individual that the leaders of the early church knew.
>In 2  Corinthians 11:3-4, he states that the community in Jerusalem is
>promulgating *another Jesus*.

In 2 Cor Paul is warning the people of another Jesus and that they should
be aware of it.  He does not state, but yet you dream, that Paul is 
decrying the Church in Jerusalem.

If Paul knew how to turn religous leader into a god, why did he so vigourly 
deny that he was a god, for that in you scenario would or should have been 
Paul's grand opportunity?

    Acts 14:11-15 (NIV)   When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they 
    shouted in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have come down to us in 
    human form!" {12} Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called 
    Hermes because he was the chief speaker. {13} The priest of Zeus, 
    whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to 
    the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to 
    them. {14} But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they 
    tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: {15} "Men, 
    why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are 
    bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things 
    to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in 
    them. 

>Anyway, Paul has to return to Jerusalem, and he will meet with the
>leadership of the early church. Not surprisingly, another dispute ensues.
>According to the Acts, James agrees to compromise - for the sake of peace
>in the small church - and promises pagans to more easily join the
>congregation. He consents to relax certain aspects of the Jewish Law, and
>remains adamant on others.

Oh - I thought it was the elders there in Jerusalem - why did Paul have
to go back there, if he was so much in control?????????
The letter was from the elders, Peter had just given a persuasive speech
and James presented God's will for his message to be given to the Gentiles.

>Paul still needs the endorsement of the church, mostly to legitimize the
>communities he has founded outside Israel. He has however already decided
>to go his way. He embarks on another mission of travel and preaching,
>punctuated by another visit to Jerusalem. It is clear that based on his
>personal letters he has become almost completely estranged from the
>leadership in Jerusalem - mostly due to his non-adherence to the Law. For
>instance, in Galatians he alludes to 'these people who are acknowledged
>leaders - not that their importance matters to me'. He also states that

Where is this reference??

In Gal 2:1-2, Paul tells us he went to the leaders for fear that he had
run his race in vain.  He went for approval, as he told them waht he was
preaching.

   Gal 2:1   Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with
      Barnabas. I took Titus along also.
   Gal 2:2   I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel
      that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who
      seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in
      vain.

>'faith in Christ rather than fidelity to the Law is what justifies us', and
>that 'no one can be justified by keeping the Law'.

Peter does the same - he says we (the Jews) are saved by faith just like
the Gentiles are. (Acts 15:7-11)

>'Christianity', as it now evolves from Paul, has severed all connections
>with its roots (Judaism), and can no longer be said to have anything to do
>directly with Jesus teachings - instead of Paul's image of Jesus.

It has all to do with Jesus and his teachings, for he is the embodiment of
prophecy - the OT (Judaism) points to Jesus the Christ - the NT reveals him.

>Paul is yet again back in Jerusalem, despite pleas from his supporters who
>have begged him not to go (too dangerous). Again, he meets with James (this
>sounds like a political campaign) and the leadership of the early Church.
>They yet again express their worry that Paul preaching to Jews living
>abroad, is encouraging them to forsake the law of Moses. Paul does not
>answer to this. The impression is that he is keeping quiet about his plans,
>and he denies the charges against him. When asked to purify himself for
>seven days, he readily consents to do so...

Here are some of Paul's message:

   2 Cor 4:5   For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and
      ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake.

   Acts 24:12   My accusers did not find me arguing with anyone at the temple,
      or stirring up a crowd in the synagogues or anywhere else in the city.
   Acts 24:13   And they cannot prove to you the charges they are now making
      against me.
   Acts 24:14   However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a
      follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I BELIEVE EVERYTHING THAT
      AGREES WITH THE LAW AND THAT IS WRITTEN IN THE PROPHETS,

   Rom 1:1   Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set
      apart for the gospel of God--
   Rom 1:2   the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the
      Holy Scriptures
   Rom 1:3   regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of
      David,
   Rom 1:4   and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to
      be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our
      Lord.

   Titus 1:1   Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the
      faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to
      godliness--

>A couple of days later Paul causes trouble again. On being seen at the
>Temple, he is attacked by a crowd of the pious (remember that Christians
>actually took part in Jewish temple ceremonies then). "This is the man who
>preaches to everyone everywhere... against the Law" they state. There's a
>riot, and Paul is dragged out of the Temple, his life in danger. He is
>actually rescued by a Roman officer, who suddenly appeared with a troop
>(interesting). Paul is arrested, and put in chains. The Roman leaders
>suspect him of being a political rebel - style Jesus.

   Acts 24:12   My accusers did not find me arguing with anyone at the temple,
      or stirring up a crowd in the synagogues or anywhere else in the city.
   Acts 24:13   And they cannot prove to you the charges they are now making
      against me.
   Acts 24:14   However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a
      follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I BELIEVE EVERYTHING THAT
      AGREES WITH THE LAW AND THAT IS WRITTEN IN THE PROPHETS,

>Now Acts gets really confusing. It seems that there has been editing done
>in order to hide certain historical events. Now, Paul protests that he is a

Or maybe some Kenting done to hide the message.

>Roman (!) and a Jew of Tarsus and asks permission to address the crowd who
>earlier tried to lynch him. Paul starts to speak positive about the
>Christian church, trying to get them on his side. However the crowd does
>not believe him. "Rid the earth of this man, he is not fit to live" (Acts
>22:22).
>
>Romans take Paul out to their fortress (headquarters). Here they intend to
>interrogate him under torture for possible terrorist information. However
>it is illegal by Roman law to torture Roman citizens, so escapes torture,
>but remains incarcerated. It is interesting to note that the way Paul
>escaped torture and martyrdom was by him using a legal loophole. It also
>showed his courage - or actually lack of it.

Maybe it shows his education and understanding of the Roman law - maybe
Paul was not dumb.

>Meanwhile, the story continues. An angry mob of Jews meet in secret. They
>vow not to eat or drink until they have killed Paul. This shows the sheer
>intensity and hate concerning Paul. One didn't expect such violent and
>angry behavior from ordinary Jews. Anyway, whoever these were, the would-be
>assassins (according to Acts) is suddenly amazed by the sudden appearance
>of Paul's so far unmentioned nephew. This would make a great TV story. This
>nephew somehow (deux ex machina?") has learned about the plot. Even worse,
>this nephew informs both Paul and the Romans about this. So Paul is moved
>to a more secure place. Note this, he is removed with an escort of 470
>troops. And this was a dangerous enemy to the Roman state?

Who said Paul was a dangerous enemy of Roman - the people or the government?

>The next stop is Caesarea, where he appears before the governor and Rome's
>puppet king, Agrippa. As a Roman citizen Paul has the right to have his
>case heard in Rome, and as a coward he invokes this right in order to
>escape the problems in Israel. He is sent off for trial in Rome, and here
>the story ends. Acts actually suddenly breaks off, as if there was more to
>be told, but it has been removed by later editors. There's no mentioning
>about Paul further adventures, so any possible stories about him meeting
>Peter in Rome, or him speaking with Nero are most likely tales. Eventually
>the writer of Acts didn't know what really happened after Paul was shipped
>to Rome. Or then the writer knew, but he didn't want to write about it.

So it looks like Paul made his appeal to Caesar in Acts 25, but there
three remain chapters of Acts contained nothing. :-)

    Acts 25:8 (NIV)   Then Paul made his defense: "I have done nothing wrong 
    against the law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar." 

    Acts 25:11 (NIV)   If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving 
    death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by 
    these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. 
    I appeal to Caesar!" 

    Acts 25:12 (NIV)   After Festus had conferred with his council, he 
    declared:  "You have appealed to Caesar. To Caesar you will go!" 


In Acts 16 we see Paul make his defense to King Agrippa and his comment
on Paul's crime, which was none existant.

    Acts 26:32 (NIV)   Agrippa said to Festus, "This man could have been set 
    free if he had not appealed to Caesar." 

Acts 27-28 go into detail of Paul being shipped to Italy.

    Acts 27-28 (NIV)   When it was decided that we would sail for Italy, 
    Paul and some other prisoners were handed over to a centurion named 
    Julius, who belonged to the Imperial Regiment. {2} We boarded a ship 
    from Adramyttium about to sail for ports along the coast of the province 
    of Asia, and we put out to sea. Aristarchus, a Macedonian from Thessalonica

The record of the encountered storm:

    {19} On the third day, they threw the ship's tackle overboard with their 
    own hands. {20} When neither sun nor stars appeared for many days and 
    the storm continued raging, we finally gave up all hope of being saved. 
    {21} After the men had gone a long time without food, Paul stood up before 
    them and said: "Men, you should have taken my advice not to sail from 
    Crete; then you would have spared yourselves this damage and loss. 
    {22} But now I urge you to keep up your courage, because not one of you 
    will be lost; only the ship will be destroyed. {23} Last night an angel 
    of the God whose I am and whom I serve stood beside me {24} and said, 
    'Do not be afraid, Paul. You must stand trial before Caesar; and God 
    has graciously given you the lives of all who sail with you.' 
    ...
    {44} The rest were to get there on planks or on pieces of the ship. In 
    this way everyone reached land in safety. {28:1} Once safely on shore, 
    we found out that the island was called Malta. {2} The islanders showed 
    us unusual kindness. They built a fire and welcomed us all because it 
    was raining and cold. 

    {7} There was an estate nearby that belonged to Publius, the chief 
    official of the island. He welcomed us to his home and for three days 
    entertained us hospitably. {8} His father was sick in bed, suffering 
    from fever and dysentery. Paul went in to see him and, after prayer, 
    placed his hands on him and healed him. {9} When this had happened, 
    the rest of the sick on the island came and were cured. {10} They 
    honored us in many ways and when we were ready to sail, they furnished 
    us with the supplies we needed. {11} After three months we put out to 
    sea in a ship that had wintered in the island. It was an Alexandrian 
    ship with the figurehead of the twin gods Castor and Pollux. {12} We 
    put in at Syracuse and stayed there three days. {13} From there we set 
    sail and arrived at Rhegium. 
    
    {21} They replied, "We have not received any letters from Judea 
    concerning you, and none of the brothers who have come from there 
    has reported or said anything bad about you. {22} But we want to hear 
    what your views are, for we know that people everywhere are talking 
    against this sect." {23} They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, 
    and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. From 
    morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of 
    God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and 
    from the Prophets. {24} Some were convinced by what he said, but others 
    would not believe. {25} They disagreed among themselves and began to 
    leave after Paul had made this final statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke 
    the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: 
    {26} "'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never 
    understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." {27} For 
    this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their 
    ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with 
    their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, 
    and I would heal them.' {28} "Therefore I want you to know that God's 
    salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!" 
    {30} For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house 
    and welcomed all who came to see him. {31} Boldly and without hindrance 
    he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ. 

>The last parts of Acts are confusing, related to the riot in the Temple.

Here I assume you mean the last half of Acts, for above you say nothing
else is recorded.

>Anyway Acts clearly describes the political battle between the hardliners
>who would like to conform to the Law, and Paul and his political group who
>wanted to relax the Law in order to create a religion which could convert
>Gentiles. The hardliners were not that much concerned about the numbers of

You are right - it was fight between legalism and grace - Paul and the
elders were on the side of grace.  Check out Peters statments above.

>converted people, while Paul is prepared to compromise with doctrinal
>purity in order to grow the community. His primarily objective was to
>spread his message and doctrines as widely as possible and to assemble the
>largest possible church. He is even willing to compromise with the Roman
>leaders in order to stay alive and continue with the work. Martyrdom was
>not practical for him.

Oh.

>Thus, the early church is rent by a schism between Paul and the original
>leaders who personally obtained instructions from Jesus. James seems to be

If the original leaders thought Paul was wrong (name some of them, if
you'd like), then why didn't they correct Paul?

>one of the hardliners - even if he is sometimes willing to compromise in
>order to keep the small church under control. Anyway, Acts indirectly
>points out a clash between Paul and James. Paul wanted to create a new

So you wish - Paul was in submission to the elders, else he would not
have went to them nor asked them for approval.

>religion, a religion where Jesus is a god, is able to do miracles, and
>could be matched to any other hero-gods that were present in ancient Middle
>East. For James and the early church this was blasphemy. The end of Acts
>shows how the rioting started due to this collision of religious ideas.

The end of Acts covers Paul trip to Rome.  It you check, you will see
that the people in Rome welcomed him with open arms.

>The interesting observation today is that if the mainstream of Christians
>would have followed the teachings of the original church, most likely
>Christianity as we know it today would not exist, only a particular species
>of Judaism which would not have emerged as a strong force amongst gentiles.

Called legalism and it is a problem even today.

>However, the mainstream, especially the amongst gentile followers,
>gradually coalesced during the next 300 years around Paul and his
>teachings. One strong force was the doctrine of slaves and non-Romans which
>would inherit the heaven, so this form of Christianity gathered followers
>in the huge group of underprivileged humans in the Roman state. Thus a new
>religions was born - a religion which had little to do with the original
>founder, his disciples and the Jewish inheritance -  instead it relied on a
>mystical vision by a Roman headhunter and politician/preacher.

    I would say that a new religion was born, for the old religion, 
Judaism, rejected their Messiah.  The fact that Jesus was the
Messiah is the central theme of the NT and of Christianity - the Jews 
reject this.   From the book of Hebrews, we see that the old pasted
away and the new was instituted.  The priesthood changed.  Our high
priest is Jesus Christ - not the Levitical priesthood.  He did once and
for all what they could not do.  He finsished the work and sat down at the
right hand of God.  The former priest continually worked never taking away
sin, but Jesus did.

Jesus was proclaimed as God, The Christ (Greek) and the Messiah (Hebrew).

    In John chapter 1, Jesus is given the attributes of being the Word
(v1), being with God (v1), being God (v1), being with God in the 
beginning (v2), being reponsible for the creation of all things (v3),
being in the world (v10), made flesh (v14), and dwelt among us (v14).
John says they have seen his glory, of the One and Only, who came 
from the Father (v14).

    We see in Hebrews 9:22 that there is no forgiveness without the
shedding of blood.  In Heb 9:12, He entered the Most Holy Place once 
for all by His own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.  And 
this once and for all.

    The Jews, as a religion, rejected and continue to reject this.  

    In Hebrews 8:1-13 (note verses 5-8 and 13,) we see the scarifical system
being a shadow of things to come, but the ministry Jesus has received
is superior than the "old one", and it is founded on better promises.  A
new covenant was needed bacause God found fault with the people. Verses
8-12 are quoted from the Old Testament (Jeremiah 31:30-34.) God says he
will make a NEW covenant.  Verse 13, by calling this covenant "new" he
has made the first one obsolete, which is aging and will soon disappear.
Hebrews 10:9 - He set aside the first to establish the second.

>References: Acts, the Gospels, Macoby  "The Myth Maker".

And I thought you only were summarizing the book of Acts.

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts
-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu       |    
Atlanta, GA                --|-- 
                        -|-  |  -|-
                         |   |   |
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc