There are those who simply wish to ignore the relationship of Paul to the early church because of their agenda,
o somehow separate Paul from the apostolic church is really absurd, which not only defies logic, but even basic theological scholarship. How many times have we seen people with their agendas denying even basic evidence.
This is what I'm talking about. Did you even read what you quoted??
Yes, I have an agenda. I have a confirmation bias. I admit mine. Do you think you don't? You talk about "Basic theological scholarship" but it's quite apparent you yourself haven't read it. You get offended when I point out that you make assertions you don't know anything about, and you prove it quite handily when you didn't even know about 2 Peter. You're the one denying basic evidence. You don't even understand the whole point of the contention with Acts 21. Even by the traditional account, the meeting with Paul and the Jerusalem Church after the alleged "Council of Jerusalem" was one of extreme suspicion.
With that said, you consistently refuse to address the issue behind Acts 21 in the first place!
FF Bruce also admits there is a problem reconciling Acts 15 and Galatians 2, which is why he comes up with a very strange (and rarely if ever supported by others) idea that it's referring to two different events. Many scholars don't even believe it happened (At least as Acts 15 says it did).
http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com/2007/10/jerusalem-council.html
2. Paul's understanding of his meeting in Jerusalem recorded in Galatians 2 does not correspond to Acts 15, neither in terms of outcome or in terms of who was there and what was discussed. Trying to harmonize them results in apology, not history.
3. If the decision of Acts 15 had been made prior to the Antiochean Affair, it doesn't make sense that the apostles would then begin a counter-mission to Paul after the Affair and demand circumcision of the Gentiles in the churches Paul missionizes. It is very clear to me that the opponents to Paul are not unknown folks, but authoritative missionaries (even disciples) from Jerusalem.
4. Then there is that strange passage in Acts 21:25 that appears to suggest a letter having been sent out without Paul's knowledge about a decision made by James in terms of the Noahide laws, a decision that looks to be a compromise between Paul's radical position, and that of the Jerusalem Church, although no mention is made of circumcision.
PS Let me also add, there are a few, though not the majority, (though perhaps may be later), who have excellent reasons for why Galatians may be yet another forgery/"Pseudipigrapha" not actually written by Paul....
^ for example, F. R. McGuire, even though otherwise critical scholars like A. Q. Morton saw this text as the benchmark for refuting Pauline authorship of most other epistles; see A. Q. Morton and J. McLeman, Paul, the Man and the Myth (1966).
http://www.radikalkritik.de/DID PAUL WRITE GALATIANS.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles
http://www.thewaytoyahuweh.com/research/did-paul-write-galatians (Requires a download, excellent, well-written read comparable to any scholarly writing in detail and analysis).
The description of the 'Apostolic Council' in Acts 15, generally considered the same event described in Galatians 2,[58] is considered by some scholars to be contradictory to the Galatians account.[59] The historicity of Luke's account has been challenged,[60][61][62] and was rejected completely by some scholars in the mid to late 20th century.[63] However, more recent scholarship inclines towards treating the Jerusalem Council and its rulings as a historical event,[64] though this is sometimes expressed with caution.[65]
(Note: The more recent scholarship in question seems to be most entirely that of Conservative scholars, and there's a reason it is "expressed with caution").
http://paulproblem.faithweb.com/split2.htm
You probably don't even know about the scholarly issue with the Council of Jerusalem and its clash with Galatians 2 and how it was widely considered Interpolated by the Tubingen school and many recent scholars. You are by no means here for honest discussion, and if you are, you certainly haven't indicated it, you are here to push the traditional antinomian Evangelical view and then plug your ears to all arguments on the other side.
You are acting as if you can just totally sideswipe this historically controversial issue and brush aside all arguments in favor of the anti-Paul position, and it wouldn't be as annoying if you were just an Evangelical trying to vouch for his own belief.
You've probably never heard of F.C. Baur either.
Nor have you probably heard about the Clementine Literature (Which are not the Epistles of Clement).
Why don't you kindly admit your own agenda and then try actually learning about this. Otherwise, I will not tolerate your none-too-veiled agenda to promote the same antinomian view as the orthodox church on my watch. And please, try actually sticking to an APPROPRIATE THREAD.
