Joined: 30 Nov 2002 Posts: 17 Location: http://www.harrington-sites.com
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:35 pm Post subject: Galatians versus Acts
Galatians versus Acts:
The intent of my writings is to make known to the unsuspecting that faith in God and faith in the Bible is not one and the same. That righteousness before God is not a matter of one's religion or belief, but is in being righteous towards others. I believe that in making the contradictions between Galatians and Acts known to the unsuspecting some might see that faith in God should not rest upon what men say of God, but in God alone! And to thereby learn that although there may be truths in the Bible it is by no means the inerrant word of God. For its claim that God is that butcher in 1 Samuel 15:2-3, is its lover of bloody sacrifices, its justifier of slavery and oppression of women are not merely false claims but are perverse claims made against the very goodness of God!
I will take it for the moment that you are sincerely trying to understand these contradictions so I will comment a bit. If it is simply an academic attempt to disprove the Bible then you might read it for kicks, but I doubt you will enjoy it overly much.
As to Paul not consulting any man, he is not referring to the fact that he didn't talk to anyone. He is referring to the fact that He did not learn his doctrine from James, John, etc. To understand why this is important you must read Acts 15 etc, as this is the whole backdrop of Galatians here, particularly the circumcision controversy. He is showing that he is in fact an apostle just like the others, and that his gospel was direct from God.
The Galatian church had abandoned the gospel for legalistic rites. In order to do so they first had to REDUCE the teaching of Paul in the eyes of the people. This was not an easy task since Paul established the church. But the Judaizers over time corrupted their faith, causing them to depend on works of righteousness. Paul has been reduced in their mind and is trying to get them to remember their love for him, their love for the gospel, and the validity of his message as from God. He wants them to realize that they received God's Spirit through faith, not legalistic observance. And he knows that the whole argument hinges on whether they accept him...or his opponents...as an instrument of God. Therefore he recounts his conversion in a much more detailed manner....see below.
Quote:
GAL 2:6 As for those who seemed to be important--whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance--those men added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
Compare with this account of his first visit:
Quote:
AC 9:26 When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus. 28 So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord.
I don't see the inherant contradiction here. Nor does it trouble me that he stayed a bit in Arabia. The point here was that he was just as much as apostle by the grace of God as the "pillars". Hence his inclusion of his rebuke of Peter in regards to eating with gentiles. He not only was as good as them but God could rebuke them through him.
The whole point of the passage was introduced back in 1:11
Quote:
GAL 1:11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
The whole reason of giving a more full explanation of every event here is to point out that at no time did he go get his facts from James etc. So he goes to great pains to spell out every thing up until the time that they endosed his ministry so that he could demonstrate that his was not a borrowed gospel. It was from God......as opposed to the "other gospel, which is no gospel at all" that the judaizers taught.
The book of Acts on the other hand is simply recording history for a Roman official. It would be silly for Luke to record every little incident in Paul's early conversion, as he has no burden to prove as did Paul with the Galatians. They are different accounts for different purposes. Luke is giving the basics, introducing Paul and his story. Paul is talking to people who already know all about him, but is reminding them of all the particulars for the specific purpose of establishing his message's origin--the very point of contention in that church.
Luke records testimony from different individuals. If the little historical facts don't match up in every account, that doesn't really bother me. For that matter there are much more clear cases in the gospels of such things. What you need to come to grips with is that the accounts were simply that. Accounts. God inspired the people at the time, but he did not inspire the very words. That bothers some, and apparently you. But if you look at the method of transmission it includes visions, dreams, spoken word, and rarely written words (ten commandments), as well as compilations of God's acts through history. Acts is an example of the latter.
Sometimes he would simply impress their thoughts apparently. That is why we see people expressing the scriptures in their own way. Amos talked like a farmer, while Isaiah like a priest/politician. This should not suprise us.
Take Revelation for instance. Here John is pictured as seeing a vision, and he records it from his own perspective. The same happened with other prophets. Strangely at one point he is told NOT to write something he particularly heard.
The point is God inspired the scriptures in various ways but it was rarely the words themselves inspired. And other books are recorded history of God's acts. If an element here or there is missed it hardly invalidates the whole account. Scholars accept many ancient texts whose standards of scholarship are an embarrasment by modern standards. It does not mean that what they say is false.
Perhaps do some study into the difference between verbal inspiration (the concept that every word of the Bible...often in English....is inspired by God) as opposed to thought inspiration (that God inspires the author through their thoughts, visions, dreams, words, etc. but it is the thoughts, not the exact words that are inspired unless noted)>
And as to Paul being the apostle to the gentiles, there is no mystery here. Paul did in fact go to the Jews first in a town because he knew he would find there people already acquainted with the scriptures, etc. He could more easily convert them and form a base from which to expand. But notice he was going to Jews IN GENTILE LANDS. Whereas James, Peter, etc. all hung around Jerusalem for some time, and in fact no one went to the gentiles until after the persectution of the church following the stoning of Stephen. This was fulfilling Jesus prediction in Acts 1: 8, "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
We see that this happened in the very order stated with the gospel going to Samaria through Philip, and then God sending first Peter to the Gentiles through the vision of Cornelius, and then Paul sent to the gentiles in many places.
IF you read through Romans 9-11 you find that Paul had a great burden for his own people, and appealed to them, but found that the gentiles were also grafted into the vine of Israel. God did not abandon his people. Paul appealed to all people, including the Jews.
Not only that but there were "God fearing gentiles" who would attend his lectures at the synagogue (or in fact at the agora in Athens, or the lecture hall in other towns, he simply went where there were people). These often responded better than the Jews:
Quote:
AC 13:26 "Brothers, children of Abraham, and you God-fearing Gentiles, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent.
Note also this passage:
Quote:
AC 13:44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. 45 When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and talked abusively against what Paul was saying.
AC 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. 47 For this is what the Lord has commanded us:
" `I have made you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.' "
AC 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
AC 13:49 The word of the Lord spread through the whole region.
Here we see a few things.
- Paul's method was quite effective. He went to the synagogue and presented his message to a group of people. This caused a stir and the whole town showed up. He would never have gotten that just talking to a few random gentiles.
- From there his message spread to the whole REGION--a gentile region
- Paul himself contends that God sent him to the gentiles here--in acts. There is no contradiction here.
The Bible is simply more nuanced than we give it credit for. This is because it is a record of God's work with people IN HISTORY, not simply a bunch of beliefs spelled out.
I pray that in fact you do come to see God's word as not only sometimes good, but inspired.
Joined: 30 Nov 2002 Posts: 17 Location: http://www.harrington-sites.com
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 10:44 am Post subject:
tall73, I read to the following point in your wordy statement and stopped: "As to Paul not consulting any man, he is not referring to the fact that he didn't talk to anyone. He is referring to the fact that He did not learn his doctrine from James, John, etc."
I did address that point in my argument and must assume that you have not read it. Therefore, I see no point in discussing what I have posted if you are not going to examine the particular points in my argument.
Actually I did read most of it, thought at first I didn't see pages 2 and three....I must say you are hardly brief yourself. If you expect us to read whatever you link to then it won't hurt you to read our responses. But having now read the whole thing I see that your burden is not for the contradictions themselves anyway. You are against Acts because it shows more of a bent toward law.
You claim to cut through what man says about God to what God is really about. Is that the case, or is simply that you cannot reconcile yourself all that God says about Himself, so you pick and choose what you like? It hardly makes sense to criticize fundamentalists for eisegesis, reading into the text their own ideas, when you simply throw out any of the text that doesn't agree with your notions. You are doing the same thing you criticize them for on a larger scale.
Ah well.
I think Eugene's description is accurate. I will stop bothering now.
Joined: 30 Nov 2002 Posts: 17 Location: http://www.harrington-sites.com
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 5:27 pm Post subject:
Someone here has placed the following below my user name: apologist for Satan
Insanity of Insanities: How strange it is that the I'm the one who is saying God is not a butcher of people and am called a servant of Satan while those claiming that God is that butcher in 1 Samuel 15:2-3 are called His saints?
One thing that is absolutely peculiar around here is your unrelenting obsession for complaining about a very remote and unexplained text in Scripture (1 Samuel 15:2-3) in contrast to your silence about the everlasting gospel and to injustices that should be addressed in the here and now. You obviously don't love Jesus and are ignorant of Christ's teachings.
What makes you believe that you do not qualify for your current rank? Jesus said,
Quote:
He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad. Matthew 12:30.
Joined: 30 Nov 2002 Posts: 17 Location: http://www.harrington-sites.com
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 7:42 pm Post subject:
So you're the clown that tacked "apologist for Satan" on my user name. Well, it may not trouble one of your spirituality to believe that God is a butcher of women, children and infants, but I've no doubt that it does trouble others. And they, not you, are the ones that my message is intended for!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
