As many of you know, I was privileged to be on a recent episode of Reason and Theology. What I discussed and refuted was the argument that the Church of Rome did not have a monarchial bishop until the mid-second century. I of course shredded the argument. In the weeks leading up to this episode I had written several articles refuting this dumb theory. I presented them on the show.
I want to compare this argument with the Islamic argument that there was an early Islamic movement that got crushed by Paul. At least when Jerry Walls and James White try to say that there was no mono-episcopate in the early Roman Church they’re citing the early sources, though incorrectly.
I showed that St. Ignatius couldn’t possibly praise the Roman Church if they were following the two-tiered model. I also showed that while not naming the monarchial bishop of Rome, he doesn’t name a single soul in the Church of Rome. The only person named is a guy named Crocus and he’s with Ignatius, not at Rome. This is taking the views of Ignatius and making his statements to the Roman Church impossible. After all, he praises the Roman Church.
In Acts 21: 17 – 26 we have James confronting Paul on the supposed statements he had made about Jewish converts to Christianity. This is an attempt to show conflict between Paul and James. The only problem is that the issue that they’re arguing has nothing to with any Christian vs. Islamic dilemma. We need to use the tools that we used to refute White and Jerry Walls.
James doesn’t mention Paul compromising Tawheed, the Injeel, Christ escaping death as opposed to being crucified or anything like that. He’s mentioning the practice of Jewish converts to the faith and whether they have to keep the old laws. That’s an issue that Islam and Christianity have never debated since neither one of us adheres to the Mosaic law. In fact, Muslims must side with Paul because if what James was preaching is Islam, Islam doesn’t require adherence to the Mosaic law.
When a Jew converts to Islam they don’t need to continue with Jewish rituals. They no longer observe the Sabbath, Jewish food laws, holidays found in the Torah, etc. You don’t see Jewish converts to Islam throughout history making Sukkahs to stay in for a week. Also, I’m sure if you can find an isolated or two of this behaviour it was condemned by the religious authorities.
So if a Muslim wants to say that one of them were wrong, it would have to be James. Of course I don’t take this position. I think James heard a bad rumour. Paul never said that Jewish converts have to stop following Jewish customs in any of his writings.
This is how research is done; by looking carefully at the facts and taking the implications. If you do this, there is no hint of Islam anywhere in the Bible, let alone Acts 21. The mono-episcopate has also always existed in Rome. History folks!!!
Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.