Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Good question.  Here's my personal take, of course open to changing my
    view as I learn.
    
    1. Apostles were chosen by Jesus, they didn't choose him.
    2. Apostles are defined as those who interacted with Christ and even
       walked with him.
    3. Paul refers to himself as an apostle born out of season.  His
       conversion took place after the ascension, yet he spoke audibly 
       to Christ.
    4. Do apostles exist today?  I believe no.  I believe the Word is God's
       revelation to believers today.  
    
    Views not written in stone!!
    
    -Jack
    

    None of the apostles were scholars.  None were seminary trained.
    
    Richard

 I'd say they had a pretty good teacher, though.





 Jim

>    None of the apostles were scholars.  None were seminary trained.
    
    	Several years with Jesus on a daily basis sounds like a whole
    lot more training then most seminarians get. Did they go to a seminary
    as we know them today? No. Were they trained? Yes.
    
    			Alfred

    Yes, they were "trained."  Did they "get it?"  Not always.
    
    Richard
    

    They were *all* Jewish males.
    
    Richard
    

Matthew (aka Levi) was a tax collector.

Peter was a fishermen.

Paul was a tent maker.

Simon was a Zealot, which is a Jewish political party.

Judas Iscariot may have been a member of a terrorist faction called
the Sicarii (my spelling may be off), which means "the knife."

					Richard

One qualification:  they came when called

    Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, provides a tantalizing clue to
    the seriousness of the political wrangling that occurred among the
    apostles.  Paul gives his side of a conflict with Peter, and it would
    have been interesting to hear Peter tell his side as well, which I
    suspect would have been a little less unfavorable to himself.  As it
    is, we see Paul accusing Peter of "hypocrisy", and stating:  "When
    Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood
    self-condemned."  Pretty harsh words.  That passage is contained in a
    broader discussion in which Paul offers a justification for his
    legitimacy as an apostle.  It seems as if he had an axe to grind.

    -- Mike

    
    It's interesting Mike that Peter felt that Paul had an axe to grind
    that he would then come back in his writings and support Paul's writings.  
    Peter was wrong about making non-Jews live by Jewish laws and traditions, 
    Paul called him on it.  The Holy Spirit convicted Peter and Peter was 
    a better man for it.  There was no animosity between them.  They were 
    brothers in Christ and brothers help each other in their walk and keep 
    them accountable.  They had the tie that binds!
    
    Jill

    Jill, I presume that you are assuming that the New Testament epistles
    from "Peter" were written by the apostle.
    
    -- Mike

I, too, get the impression that there existed no small degree of tension
between Paul and Peter, and between Paul and Barnabas for that matter.

Paul was a pretty strong-willed (stubborn, if you prefer) individual,
both before and after his conversion.

I find it difficult to believe that the Bible presents us the complete
works of Peter - 2 general letters.  And perhaps, just perhaps, Peter
had the wisdom to omit from his letters any tiffs he might have had
with Paul.

Tradition has it that the gospel of Mark was dictated to Mark by Peter.

Richard

    
    While I agree there were times when tension arose among them over
    specific issues, those situations were resolved and short lived.
    I mean none of us have ever been so caught up in ministry that we
    didn't get upset with someone when they didn't help out or quit the
    project in the middle.  No not us!  That's only a trait of that
    ill-tempered stubborn Paul, who so many in here seem to love to hate.
    Paul was human and he made mistakes, he also came under God's
    authority and reconciled any problems with his brothers.
    There is no scripture that I know of that gives me any impression to
    the contrary.
    
    Yes, I believe Peter wrote the epistles named for him...why only two?
    Could it be that Peter was not primarily a writer, but a preacher?
    
    Jill

Note 625.13

> Paul, who so many in here seem to love to hate.

I suspect I am one of "so many in here" who "seem to love to hate Paul."

Actually, I don't hate Paul.  But neither am I going to touch up his
portrait to make him look better than he was.  Some may believe the
apostles to be above criticism.  Not me.

Actually, I feel quite a bit of affinity with Paul, more than any other
apostle.

Richard

    Would a modern Roman Catholic bishop publicly accuse Pope John-Paul of
    "hypocrisy" and being "self-condemned" over a theological question?

    -- Mike

    I'm not saying nor did I ever say that the apostles were above
    reproach! They certainly had their weaknesses and made mistakes, but
    the Bible also shows them resolving their differences because of their
    love for Christ.  Right now our Pastor is doing a series of messages on
    "People Like Us" in the Bible.  The Bible hardly paints a picture of
    these guys as being perfect, but they made great spiritual strides and
    did a massive amount of Kingdom work.  Oh that I could be that valuable
    to the Kingdom of Christ!
    
    > Would a modern Roman Catholic bishop publicly accuse Pope John-Paul
    >of "hypocrisy" and being "self-condemned" over a theological
    >question?
    
    If the shoe fit, perhaps someone led by God would.  The question is
    would the Pope have the spiritual maturity like Peter to realize he was
    wrong and accept valid spiritual criticism.  You know...Peter was not a
    man who hid his faults, nor was Paul.  Did you ever wonder how Peter's
    denial got documented in the gospels?  The writers of these books
    certainly weren't right there.  Peter had to have told them. He was
    humbled.  Peter was a fiery character whose own will had to be broken
    to accept God's call.  Jesus did not reinstate Peter until after his
    resurrection.  This would certainly be humbling for anyone.
    
    Mike, you're not saying that while Paul is not above reproach, that the
    Pope is?  The Pope is a sinful person just like the rest of us...in
    need of God's grace.  I'm sure the Pope would agree.  :-)
    
    Jill

    No, Jill, I am not saying the Pope is above reproach.  I am not a
    Catholic in any case.  Actually, I was not comparing Paul with the
    Pope, I was comparing Peter with the Pope.  The impression I get is
    that calling the Pope a "hypocrite" in a public forum is not the sort
    of thing that Catholics are inclined to do.  The Pope seems to be
    treated with a reverence that is quite different from the way that Paul
    treated Peter.
    
    -- Mike

    I'm sure both knew Proverbs 9:8.
    
    Rebuke a wise man and he will love you.
    
    Paul was completely justified in the words he used.  Peter was claiming
    to live under grace while trying to have non-Jewish Christians live
    under the law.  That is hypocritical.  And by choosing to "live under
    the law" you would be self-condemned because the law means death for
    all who are under it.  They worked it out, but it was already "public"
    knowledge.   A retraction had to be written.   I believe Paul explained
    it to the "public" just as he explained it to Peter and furthermore I
    believe Peter would have fully agreed with Paul's public explanation
    because he didn't want the lambs that he was responsible for to be
    misled (John 21). We're talking about a man who asked to be crucified
    upside down because he shouldn't have the honor to die the same way His
    Lord did.  I don't see this as a man who couldn't deal with a public
    rebuke.
    
    As for reverance I believe Peter wouldn't have wanted it.  Remember
    when Cornelius bowed before him and Peter said for him to get up
    because men and angels should not except worship.  
    
    Jill

    A truly hypothetical question, but one which relates to .0 is:  Would
    women have become apostles had Jesus lived in a less patriarchal, less
    male-dominant culture?
    
    Richard
    

    RE: .19 I highly doubt he would have done much different. Jesus did
    not seem bound by conventional ideas. He did what was right regardless
    of the common culture.

    			Alfred

.20 Alfred,

This is an area where we disagree (hopefully amicably, though).

I believe if Christ were incarnate today that he would choose not only
women to be disciples/apostles, but other candidates even less likely under
conventional wisdom.

Luke (in chapter 8, I believe) alludes to the fact that Jesus had a
significant following of women, even in his day.

I believe God does judge every individual not as humans do, but by what's in
the human heart (Samuel - I've forgotten the chapter and verse).

As far as yielding to cultural convention goes, God has been known to give
in to the desires of the people, even when it was a poor choice.  In Samuel,
God warns the people against setting up a monarchy.  Yet God yielded to their
insistence on having what other nations had.

Richard

>I believe if Christ were incarnate today that he would choose not only
>women to be disciples/apostles, but other candidates even less likely under
>conventional wisdom.
    
    Actually many of the people He *did* pick were unlikely under
    conventional wisdom of that day. A tax collector? I mean really! :-)
    Rough coarse fishermen? Great spiritual leader candidates? I don't
    know why He picked only men but I don't believe it was a cave in
    to conventional wisdom.
    
>Luke (in chapter 8, I believe) alludes to the fact that Jesus had a
>significant following of women, even in his day.
    
    Luke 8:2-3 talks of a number of women who were, apparently, traveling
    with Jesus and the twelve.
    
>I believe God does judge every individual not as humans do, but by what's in
>the human heart (Samuel - I've forgotten the chapter and verse).
    
    I Samuel 16:7 "...but the LORD looketh on the heart."
    
    
>As far as yielding to cultural convention goes, God has been known to give
>in to the desires of the people, even when it was a poor choice.  In Samuel,
>God warns the people against setting up a monarchy.  Yet God yielded to their
>insistence on having what other nations had.
    
    Much as a parent will sometimes give in to a child so that they can
    learn first hand that the parent is right. In cases where God did this
    I think it was pretty obvious fairly soon that God was right after all.
    
    		Alfred

Note 625.22

>         < you knew I was going to look things up didn't you? :-) >-

Well, yeah.  But I thought you'd also provide the verses for this part:

>In Samuel,
>God warns the people against setting up a monarchy.  Yet God yielded to their
>insistence on having what other nations had.
    
:-}
Richard

Well, yeah.  But I thought you'd also provide the verses for this part:

>In Samuel,
>God warns the people against setting up a monarchy.  Yet God yielded to their
>insistence on having what other nations had.
    
    I Samuel chapter 8 and 9
    
    		Alfred

    New Testament scholar E. P. Sanders, in his book "Jesus Within
    Judaism", discusses the concept of the twelve disciples in pages
    98-106.  It makes for fascinating reading, and it is too long to
    discuss in detail here.  But there are some specific points that are
    worth citing here.

    He begins his discussion this way:

        The earliest evidence for a tradition that there was a special
        group of Jesus' followers called 'the twelve' is I Cor. 15.5, 'he
        appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve'.  This is generally taken
        to mean that he appeared to Cephas alone, then to the twelve as a
        group (including Cephas).   A few manuscripts correct the reading
        to 'eleven', doubtless with an eye on the tradition of Judas's
        death, but it is precisely this which confirms the reading
        'twelve'.  Scribes who were perfectly well aware of that tradition
        would not have corrected 'eleven' to 'twelve', thus the notion of
        'twelve' is a fixed part of pre-Pauline tradition.  The second bit
        of firm evidence is Mark 19.28, 'you yourselves will be seated upon
        twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'

    Sanders presents several additional arguments why the tradition of 'the
    twelve' goes back to Jesus himself.   He then argues that the symbol of 'the
    twelve' itself was more important than the number twelve, as suggested
    by some of the questions raised by Judas's betrayal, and by
    disagreements among the lists identifying who the twelve were.

        This immediately raises the question of whether or not there were
        twelve identifiable special disciples.  We should immediately note,
        however, that the slight variations in the lists are not readily
        explicable by a later creation.  Why should the church invent the
        number twelve and then produce lists of names which disagree?  The
        disagreements (it is noteworthy that they appear at the end of the
        lists) seem to point rather to the fact that the conception of the
        twelve was more firmly anchored than the remembrance of who they
        were.  As Gaston and Meye have pointed out, the disagreement about
        the names of some of the minor figures counts for, rather than
        against, the existence of a *group*, said to number twelve, during
        Jesus's ministry. [footnote--Cf. Gaston, "No Stone on Another", p.
        417: 'the very fact that the various lists in the gospels do not
        completely agree is a sign of the institution of the Twelve not by
        the church but by Jesus'; so also Meye, "Jesus and the Twelve, pp.
        200f.]

    Continuing along those lines, he criticizes P. Vielhauer's contention
    that "the twelve" was an invention of the later church: 'It is
    likely...that the symbol was important to Jesus and did not first come
    into being after the resurrection.  It was Jesus who spoke of there
    being 'twelve', and the church subsequently tried to list them.'

    Sanders discusses the importance of 'twelve' as a symbol rather than a
    fixed number:

        We encounter here historicity of a curious kind: the historicity of
        a symbol.  In the earliest period (evidenced by I Cor. 15.5) noses
        were not counted.  That it was some time before they started being
        counted is clear from the lists of names.  'Twelve' is a fixed
        number pointing to a group, and it was precisely the number which
        was remembered, whether or not it was strictly applicable, and even
        though it created several difficulties.  'The twelve' went by that
        title whether or not there were twelve of them.'

    Sanders argues that this number was clearly so fixed in Christian
    tradition, that it must have come directly from Jesus.  He then argues:

        It seems to me quite reasonable to think that Jesus used the number
        'twelve' symbolically, without anyone then, any more than later,
        being able to count precisely twelve.  Symbolic numbers have to be
        thought up by someone, and they may or may not rest on precise
        enumeration (cf. Matt. 1.1-17).  It seems to me more likely that
        Jesus employed the number than that the church first invented it
        and then had all sorts of difficulty with it, including naming the
        twelve.  The twelve disciples are in one way like the seven hills of
        Rome: they are a little hard to find, although the idea is very
        old.  In the case of the seven hills we cannot say that the
        founders of Rome created the idea, since the foundation of Rome was
        presumably not a single historical event; and if it were it would
        in any case be lost in the mists of time and legend.  It is here
        that Jesus and the twelve are unlike Rome and its seven hills.  The
        group around Jesus is not that remote, and their conviction that
        the kingdom was at hand and that the eschatological drama was
        unfolding is quite tangible.  They got the general idea from
        somewhere, and the specification of 'the twelve' seems to go to the
        same source: Jesus.

    Sanders then spends a lot time discussing the significance of twelve
    and, and summarizing the scholarly debate over "what Jesus had in mind
    in gathering a special group of twelve".  While some of the issues he
    does not offer definite answers to, he does point out the following:

        The fact is that the number twelve itself...points to 'all Israel'. 
        *All we have to know is the fact* that Jesus thought of, and taught
        his followers to think of, there being 'twelve'.  We do not have to
        know that the same individuals were always meant, nor even that the
        followers of Jesus at any given time could name the twelve.  We do
        not have to know that he sent twelve on a special mission, nor even
        that he said that the twelve would one day judge the twelve tribes. 
        The more wee know, the more precise our understanding will be, but we
        can see that Jesus fitted his own work into Jewish eschatological
        expectation if we know only that he *thought* of there being twelve
        around him.

    -- Mike

    If it is true that "the twelve" were not a clearly defined or fixed set
    of individuals, but merely a symbolic number assigned to Jesus's close
    circle of followers, and if women were also part of Jesus's entourage,
    then this raises some important questions about the role of women in
    the church.
    
    -- Mike

    Mike,
    
    Thank you for that information.  It is very interesting.  
    
    It is only if the essense of Christianity can transcend the gender
    issue that it can be relevent for todays world of women and men.
    
    
    Patricia

    I agree with you, Patricia.
    
    -- Mike

    P.S. What snow are you waiting for?  :-)

    
    >It is only if the essense of Christianity can transcend the gender
    >issue that it can be relevent for todays world of women and men.
    
    Hmmm....salvation for all does transcend gender.  
    
    Jill

 I'd be interested in a definition of the essence of Christianity, if it is
 not, as Jill points out, salvation for all.




 Jim

    See Note 220.* "Salvation"
    
    Richard

    next winter I guess.  I forgot how to change my personal name.
    
    Patricia

	RE: .33

	NOTES> SET PROFILE/PERSON="new personal name here"

			Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    Thanks Alfred.  I guess it is time to stop waiting for the snow.
    
    
    Patricia

    
    Patricia - I *love* your new p. name!
    
    Dorian

    Thanks Dorian.
    
    It comes from my favorite UU principle which is
    
    "respect for the interdependent web of existence to which we are a
    part"  It is the image I picture when we cast a circle for our Earth
    Based Spirituality rituals.
    
    Patricia

    
    Well it's great! (says she, currently reading about four books by or
    about Rachel Carson...)
    
    Dorian