KnightRider said:
In several scriptures Paul is referred to as an Apostle. Like I said however it is debatable if that refers to the leading council of 12 Apostles or not.
The first time Paul is mentioned as an Apostle occurs after the reported beheading of James (Acts 12:2).
There's no evidence that there was such a council of Twelve. Note that Peter's idea to replace Judas with another Apostle, filling out the number 12, came before Pentecost. After the Spirit had descended on the community, other Apostles began to appear. There's no indication that the number was restricted to Twelve, that vacancies were filled when Apostles died, or that the Twelve formed a ruling council. On the contrary, the evidence is, as I've already said, that the apostles deferred to James the Lord's brother.
There is, on the other hand, evidence that Paul never formed part of any such council as you're imagining. Paul stresses that both his gospel and his apostleship came directly from God, and not from men.
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Note that Acts (which is, above all a piece of Pauline propaganda) presents a much smoother relationship between Paul and the other apostles than Paul himself recounts in his epistles. After Paul begins preaching, when the disciples at Jerusalem are still apprehensive and unconvinced that he's a sincere convert,
Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.
This is plainly at odds with Paul's own account:
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
Acts, in other words, attempts to draw Paul into the circle of the Jesus community at Jerusalem, but Paul's own words make it clear that this picture isn't accurate. In any case, he can hardly have formed a member of any ruling council when he never even met most of the Twelve.
Note also that the apostles (
apostoloi, those who are sent) were headquartered at Jerusalem, but except for James the Lord's brother, they often traveled to plant new churches and build up existing ones; Christian tradition has them scattered throughout the Old World, with Thomas in India, Andrew in Asia Minor and Scythia, and Matthew in Ethiopia. In Romans, Paul says he's planning a trip to Spain. Considering the slowness of travel and communication in the first century, there's simply no way such a widely scattered, largely itinerant group could have formed any sort of ruling council.
KnightRider said:
Thanks you make my point quite nicely. You refer to a succession of Bishops, I suggest that there needed to be a succession of 12 leading Apostles. Since there wasn't such a succession, we see the modification (corruption) of doctrines.
The conclusion doesn't follow from the evidence. I'm convinced that there was, indeed, a radical modification of the teachings of Jesus (actually, what amounts to an abandonment of the teachings of Jesus), and that Paul bears the responsibility for much of that. But there's no evidence for any such council as you propose, so there can be no need to perpetuate something that's never existed in the first place. Nor is there any logical reason to think that such a Council of Twelve, if it had ever existed, would have
necessarily preserved a teaching free of modifications, or that the absence of such a Council must
necessarily have resulted in a modification of doctrines.
KnightRider said:
I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say True Church. To me it represents the organization that Christ established on earth that holds the authority (to preach, baptise, etc.) and preserves the true doctrines of salvation.
You're putting too much faith in organizations. Jesus never established an organization, or a religion.