Corpus-Paul

[criticaltom AT juno.com]

(For whatever my two cents are worth . . .)

It seems to me that while Paul wants to claim an authority equal to that
of the Jerusalem Apostles based upon his own experience of the risen
Jesus, that he doesn't seem to be threatened by them, nor does he want to
settle for any perception of secondary authority compared to theirs.  My
opinion is that his opponents in Galatia as well as Corinth must be other
people designated "Apostles".  For me the confusion stems around how
widely the title "Apostle" is used.  Since people like Barnabas can be
called "apostle", is it likely that there were others called "apostles"? 
(I am only a MTS student, I am not as advanced as many of you). 
Interestingly, I note that while Luke presents a rather harmonious
meeting at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, that he does not allow Paul
to speak, but has Peter and James say the very sorts of things Paul would
agree to.  This makes the whole issue more confusing in Galatians unless
there had been an internal disagreement among those in Jerusalem, i.e.,
the Pharisee believers.

I am pretty much convinced that from the problems described by Paul in
Galatians, and by Luke's references to those "of the circumcision party",
that the apostles/false apostles/super apostles were perhaps Pharisees
who wanted to teach, in particular, kosher food laws and circumcision as
incumbent upon gentile Christians.

I've also wondered what are the chances that one of Paul's opponents
turned out to be Barnabas!?

Tom Edmondson
MTS Student